Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

millosh at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 2:36 AM

Post #1 of 9 (945 views)
Permalink

Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article

Read http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers

Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims
from this article:

1. English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000
contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same
period in 2008
2. There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.

I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim that
49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp has around
ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (According to statistics
[1], there are no significant changes between the first months of 2008
and 2009.) If it is so, we should try to understand why is it so.

The second claim produced a lot of *relevant* testimonies from
Wikipedian work. Please, read them. For the first time I see highly
relevant discussion on Slashdot about Wikipedia structure. All of them
are talking about current problems of Wikipedia.

Problems are now visible at such level, that main stream media are
talking about them [2]. I would say that we need some radical moves to
stop current negative trends inside of the projects. Which? I don't
know. We should think about them. (Actually, I have a couple of
possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their
implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)

[1] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
[2] - http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

valdelli at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 3:38 AM

Post #2 of 9 (900 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article [In reply to]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:
> Read http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers
>
> Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims
> from this article:
>
> 1. English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000
> contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same
> period in 2008
> 2. There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.
>

Not only "disenchanted" but disappointed most of all in any resolution
of conflict because it is very complicated to understand how proceed
to defend their point of view. The sysops are not so disposed to guide
people in the right process or to unederstand the problem.

The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the
processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia
don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of expert
users.

If I would list here the articles which are nNPOV for the reason
described above, I could be blacklisted for a large amount of email
sent to the mailing list.

Ilario

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 5:51 AM

Post #3 of 9 (897 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article [In reply to]

Hoi,
So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/11/26 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>

> Read
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers
>
> Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims
> from this article:
>
> 1. English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000
> contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same
> period in 2008
> 2. There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.
>
> I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim that
> 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp has around
> ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (According to statistics
> [1], there are no significant changes between the first months of 2008
> and 2009.) If it is so, we should try to understand why is it so.
>
> The second claim produced a lot of *relevant* testimonies from
> Wikipedian work. Please, read them. For the first time I see highly
> relevant discussion on Slashdot about Wikipedia structure. All of them
> are talking about current problems of Wikipedia.
>
> Problems are now visible at such level, that main stream media are
> talking about them [2]. I would say that we need some radical moves to
> stop current negative trends inside of the projects. Which? I don't
> know. We should think about them. (Actually, I have a couple of
> possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their
> implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)
>
> [1] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
> [2] -
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

millosh at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 10:06 AM

Post #4 of 9 (892 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article [In reply to]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:
> So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
> make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
>
> 2009/11/26 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>
>
>> (Actually, I have a couple of
>> possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their
>> implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)

Asking such question is not constructive, as well as it is aggressive
if you take in count that I am sharing my ideas even I don't think
that they will have a lot of chances for success. It is very different
from asking the same question someone who use it as an argument in
discussions; as well as it is very different if such question comes
from the side of foundation-l participant who is new and who doesn't
know behavior of other participants.

Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list
include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a
limit. Probably, it won't be a big deal for me to pass that limit and
to go to moderation, but I agreed that some measures should be imposed
on the list and that moderators should articulate them. Also, I think
that those measures are reasonable and I want to follow them. That
means that I don't want to send more than one email per day. As I
wrote an email today and I am wasting another on this discussion, that
means that I will give to the list the next constructive input the day
after tomorrow. (I was preparing email for tomorrow for the topic
which I previously started.) So, in fact, with this question you are
blocking constructive discussion at this list.

Your question leads to a meta-discussion about my personality and my
motives, which is a light version of ad hominem attack. This kind of
behavior is aggressive. Besides that, it leads into dead end because I
already concluded that I don't want to share those my ideas here and
now exactly because of reason which I gave; which means that your
question has another not constructive feature. (Not to talk that your
question wastes my time, as well as time of those who read our two
emails.)

If I have some very good idea (or, at least, the idea for which I
think that it is [very] good) how to remove the unnecessary
bureaucracy (which shouldn't be confused with necessary bureaucracy),
I would give it, of course. However, during writing previous email,
I've got some particular ideas related to some of the negative trends.
Unfortunately, those ideas can't be implemented because of bureaucracy
(or, at least, I think so). Which means that they are not worth of
spending time in explaining them (one email of such length per idea;
maybe even some longer discussion about some of them) now and here.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bodnotbod at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 10:47 AM

Post #5 of 9 (899 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article [In reply to]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> wrote:

> Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list
> include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a
> limit.

http://strategy.wikimedia.org

No posting limit. Little bureaucracy. Ideas welcomed with open arms.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 10:55 AM

Post #6 of 9 (898 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article [In reply to]

Hoi,
Please assume good faith.. I am truly interested in good ideas.. It is
exactly because I value your opinions that I asked. The fact that there is
moderation is intended to prevent unproductive discussions. My intention is
to be to the point, clear in my statements and questions and publish as
little as necessary.

Answering this reply is necessary because I hope to get valued information
from you. The notion that because of the threat of moderation asking for
clarification is considered hostile, seems to me to be a sad and an unwanted
unconsequence.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/11/26 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:
> > So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
> > make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger
> ...
> >
> > 2009/11/26 Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>
> >
> >> (Actually, I have a couple of
> >> possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their
> >> implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)
>
> Asking such question is not constructive, as well as it is aggressive
> if you take in count that I am sharing my ideas even I don't think
> that they will have a lot of chances for success. It is very different
> from asking the same question someone who use it as an argument in
> discussions; as well as it is very different if such question comes
> from the side of foundation-l participant who is new and who doesn't
> know behavior of other participants.
>
> Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list
> include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a
> limit. Probably, it won't be a big deal for me to pass that limit and
> to go to moderation, but I agreed that some measures should be imposed
> on the list and that moderators should articulate them. Also, I think
> that those measures are reasonable and I want to follow them. That
> means that I don't want to send more than one email per day. As I
> wrote an email today and I am wasting another on this discussion, that
> means that I will give to the list the next constructive input the day
> after tomorrow. (I was preparing email for tomorrow for the topic
> which I previously started.) So, in fact, with this question you are
> blocking constructive discussion at this list.
>
> Your question leads to a meta-discussion about my personality and my
> motives, which is a light version of ad hominem attack. This kind of
> behavior is aggressive. Besides that, it leads into dead end because I
> already concluded that I don't want to share those my ideas here and
> now exactly because of reason which I gave; which means that your
> question has another not constructive feature. (Not to talk that your
> question wastes my time, as well as time of those who read our two
> emails.)
>
> If I have some very good idea (or, at least, the idea for which I
> think that it is [very] good) how to remove the unnecessary
> bureaucracy (which shouldn't be confused with necessary bureaucracy),
> I would give it, of course. However, during writing previous email,
> I've got some particular ideas related to some of the negative trends.
> Unfortunately, those ideas can't be implemented because of bureaucracy
> (or, at least, I think so). Which means that they are not worth of
> spending time in explaining them (one email of such length per idea;
> maybe even some longer discussion about some of them) now and here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

glimmer_phoenix at yahoo

Nov 26, 2009, 3:29 PM

Post #7 of 9 (897 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article [In reply to]

--- El jue, 26/11/09, Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail> escribi�:

> De: Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>
> Asunto: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Fecha: jueves, 26 de noviembre, 2009 11:36
> Read http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers
>
> Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two
> claims
> from this article:
>

Hello, Milos, all.

> 1. English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net
> loss of 49,000
> contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during
> the same
> period in 2008

Please, read the following blog post, which I already supervised in consensus with Erik Moller, explaining the difference between "retaining editors" (the numbers displayed in WSJ original article) and "monthly number of active editors"

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/11/26/wikipedias-volunteer-story/

> 2. There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules.
>

"which is becoming increasingly difficult says Andrew Dalby, author of The World and Wikipedia: How We are Editing Reality and a regular editor of the site. 'There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules. Wikipedia grew because of the lack of rules. That has been forgotten. The rules are regarded as irritating and useless by many contributors.'"

This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine.

> I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim
> that
> 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp
> has around
> ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (According to
> statistics
> [1], there are no significant changes between the first
> months of 2008
> and 2009.) If it is so, we should try to understand why is
> it so.
>
> The second claim produced a lot of *relevant* testimonies
> from
> Wikipedian work. Please, read them. For the first time I
> see highly
> relevant discussion on Slashdot about Wikipedia structure.
> All of them
> are talking about current problems of Wikipedia.
>
> Problems are now visible at such level, that main stream
> media are
> talking about them [2]. I would say that we need some
> radical moves to
> stop current negative trends inside of the projects. Which?
> I don't
> know. We should think about them. (Actually, I have a
> couple of
> possible changes in my mind, which are not radical.
> However, their
> implementation would need radical changes. Because of
> bureaucracy.)
>
> [1] - http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
> [2] - http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bodnotbod at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 3:58 PM

Post #8 of 9 (896 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article [In reply to]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Felipe Ortega
<glimmer_phoenix [at] yahoo> wrote:

> This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine.
>
>> I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim
>> that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp
>> has around ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (According to
>> statistics.

Those figures show we need help. Here's a place you can help:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org

My particular articles I'd like to see help with:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_awards_and_rewards

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features

Talk anonymously if you like. Talk on the discussion page rather than
edit. Join in.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

glimmer_phoenix at yahoo

Nov 26, 2009, 4:07 PM

Post #9 of 9 (884 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article [In reply to]

--- El vie, 27/11/09, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod [at] gmail> escribi�:

> De: Bod Notbod <bodnotbod [at] gmail>
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Fecha: viernes, 27 de noviembre, 2009 00:58
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM,
> Felipe Ortega
> <glimmer_phoenix [at] yahoo>
> wrote:
>

Dear Bod.

I already offered some of my (unfortunately really scarce time) to contribute, already:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interviews

All the same, I'll try hard to find some additional time to contribute to Strategy Plan wiki. Our main goal has been always to understand Wikipedia better, as well as to ensure its sustainability in due course.

Best,
F.

> > This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine.
> >
> >> I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of
> the claim
> >> that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is
> so, then en.wp
> >> has around ten times more fluctuation of
> contributors. (According to
> >> statistics.
>
> Those figures show we need help. Here's a place you can
> help:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org
>
> My particular articles I'd like to see help with:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_awards_and_rewards
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features
>
> Talk anonymously if you like. Talk on the discussion page
> rather than
> edit. Join in.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads