Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Self electing groups

Responses to MickMacNee

(moved from main page)MickMacNee (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? I get your argument, but you lost me on the last sentence. Hi, I'm Pericles. I recently joined this group of User:Peter Damien's. Given that there is no precedent for such a group at Wiki, are you suggesting that the group be unconditionally terminated before a consensus about its right to exist is built? That doesn't sound like consensus at all. It would be as if you sent a suspected criminal to prison and then convene a jury to decide if he or she is really guilty or innocent. Let's actually go through the process of building consensus before making hasty decisions. I for one see only one real tangible benefit of having this group within the larger Wiki community: pressure on new editors to make quality contributions, knowing that sooner or later they'll be admitted into the group. Other than that, I simply view it as a means to mingle with other experienced editors and see if I can collaborate with others on articles that I have created or frequently work on.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the venue where that consensus will be shown (or not). I am not seeking a 'ban' before this Rfc runs its course, but the basic principle is already established and eligible for comment - a self elected group is being proposed on Wikipedia, is this a good thing or a bad thing or an indifferent thing? Judging by its current process, and prior attempts at resolution, there is going to be a self-electing group on wikipedia coming from this in some form, unless it self-terminates through lack of interest or lack of its own agreement on internal matters. This rfc is to solicit comments from people who are both currently involved in it, and are currently unaware of it. It is not acceptable to me that they simply just form, and declare their legitimacy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read some of the discussion that was removed before the project was "shut down." [1] is particularly enlightening. Mr.Z-man 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy doesn't work for me. It's more like person X proposes to go out and build a large block of flats, the people in the village convene, look over his plans and advise if there is permission to build. What would be totally unfair would be those with concerns let him build away and then after it's built get together, disapprove and have it demolished. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"pressure on new editors to make quality contributions, knowing that sooner or later they'll be admitted into the group" is I imagine a huge part of the problem. - Conform with what this group believes is the right thing or you'll be somehow a second class citizen, someone on the outside striving to get in. That's pretty divisive. Guess I ought to go join the Judean People's Front. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are no images on Commons corresponding to these. Peter Damian (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you equating the organization with Frankenstein's monster? Dekimasuよ! 16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you equating it with Frankenstein's monster? Peter Damian (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re all that stuff about not knowing of any self-selecting groups; I may be missing something but I think the name you're looking for is MedCom 92.39.206.153 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A primary difference being that it is a formal part of the dispute resolution mechanism, setup by Jimbo Wales alongside Arbcom, which also isn't community selected. Both allow input of non-members but the decision is ultimately made elsewhere (by Jimbo in both cases it seems, though Medcom seem to provide the names for approval eliminating others). I don't think they are comparable to the groups under scrutiny of this RFC --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by them not being "comparable" to the groups under scrutiny in this RFC. They are possibly the best example of one of these groups (unless instead of self-selecting groups it's supposed to be about EVIL self-selecting groups or some such? That's not what it says at the top of the page). They make no secret of being self-selecting - follow the link above. 87.254.79.18 (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean they are mandated by foundation (or to all intents and purposes via Jimbo) and their purview is limited by such. This is quite distinct from arbitary groups of wikipedian's setting themselves up as groups for whatever reason. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be astonished if the Foundation were to agree that they "mandate" MedCom. Jimbo most of the times is just Jimbo; if the Board ever nominate him to speak for them on some matter then I'm sure he'll be clear that he's doing so at the time (and you can expect to see a published board minute backing it up). Otherwise he's just one Board member. Aside from that, however, if there's to be a discussion on self-selecting groups then it needs to cover the range which might well result in determining one (e.g. MedCom) is good and another, for whatever distinguishing reasons, is bad, but you're not going to get anywhere coherent if you just ignore one set or the other. It would be like people in that RFC on paid editing insisting that nobody can talk about 'bad' paid editors because that's not the ones they mean. 87.254.79.18 (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]