A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
53 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Luna-4
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ah. Just looking through the list of current mailing lists:
> Checkuser-l, functionaries-l, arbitration-l (sic), mediation-l (sic),
> accounts-en-l, OTRS-en-l (also de, fr, etc.) - quite a few private
> lists, actually, for such an open project.
>

It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or
something.

That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an
earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot.
Personally, I think it sounds likely to fragment discussion and encourage
forum shopping, aside from giving people the feeling they've been run around
-- even if you personally have a firm idea of the list's remit, other people
will not.

Your increasingly incessant personal attacks and use of the royal "we" --
what else could you be referring to? -- are a but off-putting, as well.

-Luna
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Thomas Dalton
2009/7/28 Luna <[hidden email]>:
> That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an
> earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot.

Oh, that bit is actually very simple. It allows people that have been
banned on-wiki to continue arguing.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Daniel R. Tobias
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:37:16 -0700, stevertigo wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Cary Bass<[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> > although you could not find anyone to agree with you
>
> Actually not true. Fred and George I can think of off-hand.

You mean these guys?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbledore%27s_Army#Fred_and_George_Weasley


--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
<<Oh, that bit is actually very simple. It allows people that have been
banned on-wiki to continue arguing.>>

If that's the main difference, doesn't it seem likely that this is a
proposal not likely to gain consensus?  If the community has decided
that a contributor shouldn't contribute, why would we want to hear more
from them?




-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 4:56 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l










2009/7/28 Luna <[hidden email]>:
> That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an
> earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion
cannot.

Oh, that bit is actually very simple. It allows people that have been
banned on-wiki to continue arguing.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l






_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
stevertigo wrote:
>  And I am not really "forcing" the issue - just getting
> the road cleared is all.
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
creating personal frictions and all that.

The thing is, if you are going to call up the "old days" precedents,
then it will not do to invoke a partial and sepia-tinted version. There
are several things we (I'm also an old-school Wikipedian) worked out
then, including the idea that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". There
are certainly people who continue to act as if it is. It is all very
well to get worked up about glasnost' issues - we saw a lot of that in
the last election. A rolling manifesto of abusing anyone connected with
Arbitration is not actually any kind of solution to anything.

What you seek to do might very well be achieved by some forum
unconnected to Wikipedia in any official sense.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

stevertigo-2
In reply to this post by Luna-4
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Luna<[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or
> something.

So, anyway, no. High level dispute resolution deliberations don't seem
to happen on the wiki, and this has brought about a general lack of
responsiveness, and has also negated open discussion itself to a
certain degree.

Keep in mind that people get their motivation from different places -
and in my case my recent Arbitration case left me with a certain
reminder of something that I had not dealt with before - that Arbcom's
deliberations are private, it does not like treating people like
people, and it thinks of itself as a kind of monolith of decision. So,
the idea I had a few years ago about a 'formal process for resolving
disputes' has been a resounding success, but it has also become quite
bureaucratic, overworked, and insular.

> That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an
> earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot.
> Personally, I think it sounds likely to fragment discussion and encourage
> forum shopping, aside from giving people the feeling they've been run around
> -- even if you personally have a firm idea of the list's remit, other people
> will not.

An open mailing list for dispute resolution will bring about greater
openness and wikilove.

It's true though that I long ago argued that wikien-l was not the
place for discussing on-wiki disputes, and its gratifying to see how
people have over time incorporated that idea. But its my notion that
we can and should discuss dispute resolutions in a more open and
centralized way, and I think a dedicated mailing list would work in
that respect.

> Your increasingly incessant personal attacks and use of the royal "we" --
> what else could you be referring to? -- are a but off-putting, as well.

I appreciate the fact that someone perceived as making personal
attacks will be chastised by you and others, but the fact of the
matter is that I have never made any personal attacks against Cary or
anyone else in this matter. A couple sarcastic or pointy responses to
similarly sarcastic or rude commentary do not qualify. Your
"incessant" term is a gross mischaracterization.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

stevertigo-2
In reply to this post by Charles Matthews
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Charles
Matthews<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
> were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
> creating personal frictions and all that.

I understand that I have a created a special niche for myself here. I
also understand exactly what most concerns and troubles the
bureaucratic mindset. But note that none of this "spamming" would have
been necessary back in Jimbo's day - when anything came up he did his
best to give straight and insightful answers to almost anyone.

> The thing is, if you are going to call up the "old days" precedents,
> then it will not do to invoke a partial and sepia-tinted version. There
> are several things we (I'm also an old-school Wikipedian) worked out
> then, including the idea that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". There
> are certainly people who continue to act as if it is.

Excellent points, sir. But how would opening up and centralizing one
small aspect of dispute resolution - dedicated discussion of DR itself
- decrease the peace in any way?

>  It is all very well to get worked up about glasnost' issues - we saw a lot of that in
> the last election.

I know nothing of the last election - I only get involved in these
things when I think that things have become too obviously warped for
anyone else to deal with. If you could give us a little of your own
project historian overview of what you are talking about - just for
the record - that would be rather interesting too.

> A rolling manifesto of abusing anyone connected with
> Arbitration is not actually any kind of solution to anything.

The fact remains that dispute resolution functions need to be more
open. If Arbcom and perhaps even Foundation (hm) actually functioned
fully in accord with their own stated principles or values, then there
would be no issue with concepts like transparency. Because there is an
issue, and because I long ago rejected the concept of being a mere
functionary, I am raising the point now - such that the matter gets
dealt with. Matters eventually do get dealt with.

After that, I will go back to whatever the hell it is I do around here.

> What you seekt to do might very well be achieved by some forum
> unconnected to Wikipedia in any official sense.

I consulted with Uncyclopedia, but they just laughed.
Was that the kind of disconnected and disjointed forum you were referring to?

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Charles Matthews
stevertigo wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Charles
> Matthews<[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you
>> were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists,
>> creating personal frictions and all that.
>>    
>
> I understand that I have a created a special niche for myself here. I
> also understand exactly what most concerns and troubles the
> bureaucratic mindset. But note that none of this "spamming" would have
> been necessary back in Jimbo's day - when anything came up he did his
> best to give straight and insightful answers to almost anyone.
>  
Hmm, it might save time if you sent an email to Jimbo, so you could get
his straight and insightful "no" to the idea of resolution-l. Or even
his very direct and trenchany "yes".

>  
>> The thing is, if you are going to call up the "old days" precedents,
>> then it will not do to invoke a partial and sepia-tinted version. There
>> are several things we (I'm also an old-school Wikipedian) worked out
>> then, including the idea that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". There
>> are certainly people who continue to act as if it is.
>>    
>
> Excellent points, sir. But how would opening up and centralizing one
> small aspect of dispute resolution - dedicated discussion of DR itself
> - decrease the peace in any way?
>  
Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to
assume that it is ground of your own choosing for a battle with the Sith
Lords of Arbitration.

>  
>>  It is all very well to get worked up about glasnost' issues - we saw a lot of that in
>> the last election.
>>    
>
> I know nothing of the last election - I only get involved in these
> things when I think that things have become too obviously warped for
> anyone else to deal with. If you could give us a little of your own
> project historian overview of what you are talking about - just for
> the record - that would be rather interesting too.
>  
So it turns out you don't vote for or against arbs? You are in the
majority, since turnout hardly reaches 20%. But it rather undercuts your
premise.

The 2008 election (and you'll forgive me if I keep this at a general
level) was rather Obamamatic, in that many people were voting for the
general principle of change rather than specifics of how Arbitration
could be improved, procedurally or at the level of what type of person
should be an arb. The Gorbachev reference is therefore to try to get
away from the idea that US politics is the only valid type of
comparison. It is also slyly implying that you can end up with Putin, a
KGB man, whatever the sloganising. I happen to think that requests for
things to be more "open" can be queried: there is plenty of private mail
that should remain private because it is either (a) about private life
details that have no bearing on the encyclopedia, but come up because
voluntary work tends to drag private matters into the workplace, or (b)
horse-trading and straw polls which are part of the proper work of a
committee. In fact Arbitration cases generate acres of material showing
how decisions are made; and in most cases (not all) what appears on the
wiki is at least a fair record of how a decision was reached.

>  
>> A rolling manifesto of abusing anyone connected with
>> Arbitration is not actually any kind of solution to anything.
>>    
>
> The fact remains that dispute resolution functions need to be more
> open. If Arbcom and perhaps even Foundation (hm) actually functioned
> fully in accord with their own stated principles or values, then there
> would be no issue with concepts like transparency.

That's it: sentence 1 says this is about glasnsost'. And sentence 2
appears just to be false, IMX.

Charles



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

metasj
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
resolution of difficult issues.  There is something about wiki-time (to
borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss
the flashpoint discussion that sets a precedent, people may have moved on
and you'll have to restart the original interest again.

I think the list-vs-wiki distinction is a red herring -- I'd like to see
list-to-wiki synchronization so that we never have to have that discussion
again -- so to keep things simple, let's imagine what this would look like
on-wiki.

Sam had a good idea in this direction : [[Wikipedia:Community Facilitation]]
.  It's about something more specific than dispute resolution in general,
but may be a useful part of what you have in mind, steve.  And the idea
would be both to discuss [potentially long-term] facilitation, help people
get better at it, and practice it in the context of specific issues.

Sj


On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:01 AM, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
>
> Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100
> posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just
> appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the
> opposition was sub-articulate, and whatever substantive criticism
> there was was largely based in some assumed misconceptions about its
> scope (Thomas).
>
> The real truth is that we have been waiting for Cary to fulfill one of
> his many duties and create the list. That having failed, we have been
> waiting on Cary to tell us why he has not. That also having failed, we
> instead have just been waiting a month for Cary to say anything at
> all. And he recently did, though there was little substance in it,
> other than a threat to close the bug request. Which in fact, he just
> did close as WONTFIX:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19414 . I'm sure he
> thinks he's doing the right thing. Still, despite our recent
> differences, we should welcome Cary's actual participation in our
> discussion. Thank you Cary, we understand that you were just too busy
> to give this proper consideration.
>
> Anyway, we were talking about an open list for discussing dispute
> resolution. Its scope will be broad, and its purpose will be to be
> helpful. It will discuss particular disputes in general, conceptual,
> and editorial terms, and facilitate immediate on-wiki dispute
> resolution processes. It will also discuss dispute resolution concepts
> in general, wherever that goes.
>
> -Stevertigo
> Architect of WP:CIVIL,
> creator of Arbcom,
> Inventor of those WP:Shortcuts
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Gwern Branwen
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Samuel Klein<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
> devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
> resolution of difficult issues.  There is something about wiki-time (to
> borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss
> the flashpoint discussion that sets a precedent, people may have moved on
> and you'll have to restart the original interest again.
>

Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're
looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could
pick, which is another strike against this proposal.

Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at
long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where
the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This
is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat,
IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...

--
gwern

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Gwern Branwen<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Samuel Klein<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
>> devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
>> resolution of difficult issues.  There is something about wiki-time (to
>> borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss
>> the flashpoint discussion that sets a precedent, people may have moved on
>> and you'll have to restart the original interest again.
>>
>
> Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're
> looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could
> pick, which is another strike against this proposal.
>
> Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at
> long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where
> the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This
> is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat,
> IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...

Probably to do with the stable central point - the page being
discussed. All the other mediums you mention are transient. New
articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are
(in theory) kept up-to-date.

On newsgroups I have seen years-old messages being revived, but there
is often a strong social pressure to not do that, and instead start a
new post. And there is no stable object for discussions to revolve
around.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Carcharoth<[hidden email]> wrote:

> New articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are
> (in theory) kept up-to-date.

That should have said "news articles".

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

stevertigo-2
In reply to this post by Gwern Branwen
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Gwern Branwen<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're
> looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could
> pick, which is another strike against this proposal.

And yet you write to one or more regularly, and while your name itself
may not be cited, your term "ferrets on crack" will no doubt be reused
here until the end of wiki-time.

> Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at
> long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where
> the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This
> is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat,
> IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...

Keep in mind that "wiki" is just a format, with all the backend
required, for editing documents online. It's fast becoming as
ubiquitous as paper someday will once have been, and thus our entire
project is sort of stuck with a name that in a few years will have the
same sense of distinction as 'paperpedia,' or 'pulpedia'.

Anyway, back to the point, wikis are great for documents - not
conversations. There are of course ideas out there now for ways to
make wiki pages more liquid and perhaps even making its individual
elements atomic and rankable - such as to be suitable for discussions.
And there are also ideas about making traditionally non-wiki concepts
like email more openly editable - waves comes to mind, along with
other CMSes that integrate wiki. 'Someday all websites will be wiki?'
- Sure, but when that happens we won't need to to call them wikis
anymore.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

stevertigo-2
In reply to this post by metasj
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Samuel Klein<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me --
> devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and
> resolution of difficult issues.  There is something about wiki-time (to
> borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss
> the flashpoint discussion that sets a precedent, people may have moved on
> and you'll have to restart the original interest again.

Hm. Yeah, to summarise your concept and mine in the most plain and
non-controversial terms possible - I'm looking at it simply as a way
of looking at DR on en.wiki in a new dimension.

Yes, the technology is forty years old.. but it still apparently
suffices for about a hundred other projects and project aspects. Yes,
its not ideal to separate discussions or to move on-wiki matters to
the mailing list... but what is ideal, and what works for wikien-l and
others could at least work for us.

> I think the list-vs-wiki distinction is a red herring -- I'd like to see
> list-to-wiki synchronization so that we never have to have that discussion
> again -- so to keep things simple, let's imagine what this would look like
> on-wiki.

I actually just filed a bug to start use markup conversion on [[wiki
link]]s in wikien posts. Should work at least on the web archives, and
perhaps anyone who gets the HTML version. Still sort of like the
google waves idea - though it does look a bit overkill for us here.

> Sam had a good idea in this direction : [[Wikipedia:Community Facilitation]]
> .  It's about something more specific than dispute resolution in general,
> but may be a useful part of what you have in mind, steve.  And the idea
> would be both to discuss [potentially long-term] facilitation, help people
> get better at it, and practice it in the context of specific issues.

I like it already, and I haven't even looked at it yet.

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

stevertigo-2
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM, stevertigo<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes,
> its not ideal to separate discussions or to move on-wiki matters to
> the mailing list... but what is ideal, and what works for wikien-l and
> others could at least work for us.

I should repeat though that the resolution-l list will not split
discussions nor move local discussions to the mailing list that should
be on wiki. Those are reasonable boundaries that Thomas outlined.

And "what is ideal" should be a question. (?)

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

WJhonson
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
<<In a message dated 7/29/2009 7:29:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

But note  that none of this "spamming" would have
been necessary back in Jimbo's day  - when anything came up he did his
best to give straight and insightful  answers to almost anyone.>>
 
What a comic!  I mean seriously.  The good old days, weren't that  good.
 
Will
 
 
**************Hot Deals at Dell on Popular Laptops perfect for Back to
School
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223106546x1201717234/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D8)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Luna-4
In reply to this post by stevertigo-2
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:53 AM, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Luna<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or
> > something.
>
> So, anyway, no. High level dispute resolution deliberations don't seem
> to happen on the wiki, and this has brought about a general lack of
> responsiveness, and has also negated open discussion itself to a
> certain degree.


My points are easier to refute when you change them, yes. I didn't say
"arbcom", I said "vast bulk". Arbcom is involved in only a tiny fraction of
disputes, and then only after prior resolution mechanisms have failed.
Unless you're suggesting this mailing list would replace arbcom, I can't say
that I'm sure what you're getting at, there.


> > That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an
> > earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot.
> > Personally, I think it sounds likely to fragment discussion and encourage
> > forum shopping, aside from giving people the feeling they've been run
> around
> > -- even if you personally have a firm idea of the list's remit, other
> people
> > will not.
>
> An open mailing list for dispute resolution will bring about greater
> openness and wikilove.


How? What will it add that the wiki and current mailing lists cannot? You've
argued that we should centralize discussion, and then you propose
fragmenting it with a new list. I'm not sure if I can follow that.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to start discussion here, and fork in the event
that discussion overwhelms other list traffic?


>
> > Your increasingly incessant personal attacks and use of the royal "we" --
> > what else could you be referring to? -- are a but off-putting, as well.
>
> I appreciate the fact that someone perceived as making personal
> attacks will be chastised by you and others, but the fact of the
> matter is that I have never made any personal attacks against Cary or
> anyone else in this matter. A couple sarcastic or pointy responses to
> similarly sarcastic or rude commentary do not qualify. Your
> "incessant" term is a gross mischaracterization.


Interesting that you deny making any personal attacks, and yet you
immediately leap to defend specific comments, as if you knew exactly which
ones I might be referring to. Hm!

Anyway, you seem to have knocked that off lately. Thanks.

-Luna
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

metasj
In reply to this post by Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Carcharoth<[hidden email]> wrote:

>>
>> Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at
>> long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where
>> the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This
>> is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat,
>> IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...
>
> Probably to do with the stable central point - the page being
> discussed. All the other mediums you mention are transient. New
> articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are
> (in theory) kept up-to-date.

When there is a namespace set aside for central points, such as
individual topics, wikis do this brilliantly.  But many wiki processes
simply archive without a central point (or have a week-long discussion
which is then frozen, no more discussion to be had).

One aspect of a community facilitation project would be to define a
namespace for issues, which might be moved and renamed over time, but
would not be 'closed' or 'archived' because someone though a
particular proposed implementation was not a good idea. If someone
thought it was an issue to consider, then it is a valid point in the
namespace, and will always be so.  Someone else might come up with a
great resolution to that issue in the future; it might be effectively
merged with other similar issues; it mght be better understood as a
combination of two resolvable issues.

Or it might just remain, with fluctuating priority, as something
intractable yet important-to-someone.

For instance, I was looking for the latest thoughts on the topic of
'How to create notability guidelines for a new category' (since
[[Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines]] is pretty sparse) without
success.

And the a little while before that I wanted to see who else thought G8
shouldn't be used to speedy delete talk pages or subpages with
valuable discussions. I had a specific example that would have
contributed to the idea that talk pages should be preserved... but
there was only a scattering of a dozen discussions across many
different talkpage archives.

A permanent page for each of these issues, perhaps with one or more
self-selected facilitators willing to help incorporate new thoughts
and more towards a long-term resolution, would be interesting.  To
start with, you could seed the issues namespace with the perennial
proposals.  [[WP:PEREN]] does not do these justice; and in short order
a good facilitator could replace each of the "Reason for previous
rejection" statements with a reworded but equally accurate  "Current
compromise or resolution".

SJ

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

Carcharoth
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Samuel Klein<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Carcharoth<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at
>>> long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where
>>> the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This
>>> is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat,
>>> IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...
>>
>> Probably to do with the stable central point - the page being
>> discussed. All the other mediums you mention are transient. New
>> articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are
>> (in theory) kept up-to-date.
>
> When there is a namespace set aside for central points, such as
> individual topics, wikis do this brilliantly.  But many wiki processes
> simply archive without a central point (or have a week-long discussion
> which is then frozen, no more discussion to be had).
>
> One aspect of a community facilitation project would be to define a
> namespace for issues, which might be moved and renamed over time, but
> would not be 'closed' or 'archived' because someone though a
> particular proposed implementation was not a good idea. If someone
> thought it was an issue to consider, then it is a valid point in the
> namespace, and will always be so.  Someone else might come up with a
> great resolution to that issue in the future; it might be effectively
> merged with other similar issues; it mght be better understood as a
> combination of two resolvable issues.
>
> Or it might just remain, with fluctuating priority, as something
> intractable yet important-to-someone.
>
> For instance, I was looking for the latest thoughts on the topic of
> 'How to create notability guidelines for a new category' (since
> [[Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines]] is pretty sparse) without
> success.
>
> And the a little while before that I wanted to see who else thought G8
> shouldn't be used to speedy delete talk pages or subpages with
> valuable discussions. I had a specific example that would have
> contributed to the idea that talk pages should be preserved... but
> there was only a scattering of a dozen discussions across many
> different talkpage archives.
>
> A permanent page for each of these issues, perhaps with one or more
> self-selected facilitators willing to help incorporate new thoughts
> and more towards a long-term resolution, would be interesting.  To
> start with, you could seed the issues namespace with the perennial
> proposals.  [[WP:PEREN]] does not do these justice; and in short order
> a good facilitator could replace each of the "Reason for previous
> rejection" statements with a reworded but equally accurate  "Current
> compromise or resolution".

Is there a suitable place on-wiki to put a summary of some of the
points in this thread?

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

metasj
> Is there a suitable place on-wiki to put a summary of some of the
> points in this thread?
>
> Carcharoth

If you don't mind the recursion, I've posted some of the discussion so far to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Issues/Long-term_discussions

which is part of the still-conceptual Community Facilitation project
[[WP:CF]].
If a few more people join in and help frame it and where it is going,
perhaps it will take off.

SJ

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
123