Wikipedia:Voting for busy beavers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

The problem[edit]

One can easily notice that there exists a relatively small number of noticeboards/RfCs frequenters who can be easily found to attend any other drama. They constitute a tiny minority of all Wikipedia users, and even a minority by activity. Of course, different users can be found in crowded venues. But where will a good content contributor spend most of his/her time? Where will a good technician spend most of his/her time?

Now the reader can infer what does the majority of a sub-community of teahouses/noticeboars/RfCs frequenters constitute, the sub-community henceforth referred to as the Crowd People.

It also means that Another Wikipedia is persistently under-represented. The discrimination against Another Wikipedia is particularly detrimental on RfA or other elections. For most members of the Crowd People work with content doesn’t matter. Technical skills don’t matter too. Any knowledge of guidelines also doesn’t matter. The only thing that does matter is how is the candidate loyal to the Crowd People, or some of its faction that promotes him/her. And friendship with the Crowd People really helps, because most of other, busy Wikipedians cannot do much: they are simply unaware of most of discussions.

Proposed solution[edit]

The proposed solution mainly considers the matter of WP:Requests for adminship, but can be applied to other situations as well.

Watch the RfA page, but…[edit]

Each user, who is not a pure content contributor, should have in the watchlist such most important venues as WP:Requests for adminship page. It does not imply that one should really notice most of change occurring there. To conserve mental resources, a busy Wikipedian may develop some rules.

  • Look at least once at each RfA or RfB.
  • Look at least once at each RfC that is related to your interests, unless it is hugely overcrowded.
  • If there are insufficient voters/commentators/participants yet, then you can ask questions (if interested enough), but do not comment yourself.
  • Before starting to comment you must locate at least some nicks from lists described below.
  • The “Oppose” section deserves a particular attention. Look for diffs and links.
  • Do not waste the time for arguing with your detractors. Ignore them.

Black and White lists[edit]

Usually, a human chooses a leader, or several leaders, and then follows them. This solution is not an optimal because leaders can disappear or, worse, become corrupt due to their influence.

A more elaborate solution is, for each busy person, to have two lists of Wikipedians: the Black List and the White List.

It is not a good idea to include every member of the Crowd People to the Black List. Instead, each user who supported an obviously incompetent candidate on RfA 2–3 times in the last half of year shall be included to the Black List. No matter whether s/he is a member of the Crowd People or not.

Composition of the White List may be effected according to personal preferences. Watch user_talk pages of at least some of your White List members: it will inform you promptly about troubles of these members, and you will have a possibility to help them timely. When you have a spare time, maintain some contact with White List users (including off-wiki ones), inform them about important events and sometimes ask for an advice.

Never publish your lists at any site where it can be attributed to your Wikipedia account.

Black White support oppose.svg

How to vote[edit]

  1. If most people from the White List supports, then support.
  2. If most people from the Black List supports, and a considerable part (about a half or more) of the White List opposes, then oppose.
  3. Otherwise either ignore or think yourself.

Possible drawbacks[edit]

Critics may say that the proposed solution promulgates the same gregarious conduct as is observed with the Crowd People. To counter the threat the lists must be dynamic. This means, some items should be deleted in certain circumstances. Users who are overly dependent on other people’s opinions shall be expunged from their peers’ White Lists. It may be determined, for example, when the person supported some proposal (due to support from his/her “friends”) that quickly turned to be detrimental.