Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted...

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

WJhonson at aol

Nov 26, 2009, 11:54 AM

Post #1 of 4 (675 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted...

In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
valdelli [at] gmail writes:

> 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.>>

Exactly the same point I've made a few times. Those who are expert in the
use of the game rules, impose their view on those who are not expert.

Which is why I've suggested the establishment of a group of advocates for
the editor versus the administrators who are viewed as policemen. In a real
society, the only classifications are not "public" and "police". We also
have checks and balances against the power of the police to force compliance.

In Wikipedia we do not have those checks and balances.

Will

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

george.herbert at gmail

Nov 26, 2009, 11:36 PM

Post #2 of 4 (611 views)
Permalink

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

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM, <WJhonson [at] aol> wrote:
> In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> valdelli [at] gmail writes:
>
>
>> 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.>>
>
> Exactly the same point I've made a few times. Those who are expert in the
> use of the game rules, impose their view on those who are not expert.
>
> Which is why I've suggested the establishment of a group of advocates for
> the editor versus the administrators who are viewed as policemen. In a real
> society, the only classifications are not "public" and "police". We also
> have checks and balances against the power of the police to force compliance.
>
> In Wikipedia we do not have those checks and balances.

You assume that administrators are a monolithic and confrontational
lot, neither of which is necessarily true, though both do happen at
times.

We have the Mediators, arbcom, and experienced non-admin editors
around too. Anyone who thinks admins can run roughshod over users
should watch ANI for a while. We aren't great about self-policing -
but we do it.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert [at] gmail

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

WJhonson at aol

Nov 26, 2009, 11:41 PM

Post #3 of 4 (598 views)
Permalink

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

In a message dated 11/26/2009 11:37:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
george.herbert [at] gmail writes:

We have the Mediators, arbcom, and experienced non-admin editors
around too. Anyone who thinks admins can run roughshod over users
should watch ANI for a while. We aren't great about self-policing -
but we do it.>>

--------------------------
But George you miss part of my point.
IF editors know their way around somewhat, they *could* fight an undeserved
block or reprimand or whatever.

But what you're saying here is exactly what I'm pointing out that we do not
want.
Encyclopedists are not necessarily expert game players, but we're requiring
them to learn how.
We shouldn't be. That was my point.

We should not be requiring every 95 pound weakling who shows up and runs
afoul of the 400 pound gorilla to try to learn how to fight it. Even to try
to find their way to AN/I, which is not an obvious thing at all in my mind.

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

wiki.ral315 at gmail

Nov 27, 2009, 7:41 PM

Post #4 of 4 (597 views)
Permalink

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

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:41 AM, <WJhonson [at] aol> wrote:

> But George you miss part of my point.
> IF editors know their way around somewhat, they *could* fight an undeserved
> block or reprimand or whatever.
>
> But what you're saying here is exactly what I'm pointing out that we do not
> want.
> Encyclopedists are not necessarily expert game players, but we're requiring
> them to learn how.
> We shouldn't be. That was my point.
>
> We should not be requiring every 95 pound weakling who shows up and runs
> afoul of the 400 pound gorilla to try to learn how to fight it. Even to
> try
> to find their way to AN/I, which is not an obvious thing at all in my
> mind.
>

I fail to see how this is a Foundation issue. This seems to be more of a
community issue, and an English Wikipedia issue. WikiEN-l would seem to be
a more appropriate discussion venue.

--
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
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