Anarchopedia - User contributions [en]

Charter/Sources/Cassandra

2005-05-01T01:29:24Z

Charles P.:

''[[Wikipedia:User:Mirv]]'s views on what is wrong with Wikipedia. The title is, of course, a reference to [[Wikipedia:Cassandra|the Trojan prophetess]], but on reflection this is more of a [[Wikipedia:jeremiad|jeremiad]], isn't it. There's some overlap and duplication between this and [[Charter/Drafts/Conflict Points]].''

[[Wikipedia:User:172|172]]'s departure and the reactions to it crystallized some worries I've been having about Wikipedia. He elucidates the central issue well:

:''whether nor not you are taken seriously depends not on the merit of your work but rather how many friends you have made with the users who dominate the mailing list, IRC, and the administrative pages.''
:''Instead, we have a dispute resolution process fetishizing increasingly rigid (and idiosyncratic) community norms and customs without reference to who's writing encyclopedic material and who's not.''

This fetishization of process is the worst issue. There are others:

*The ever-increasing power of sysops, which leads to:
**Sysops using their increased power to bully other users (cf. [[MeatBall:PowerAnswer]]), and
***Those users responding by attempting to undermine the sysops at every turn (bad), or else
***sucking up to sysops, acting like wannabe secret policemen: gleefully pointing out everyone else's trangressions at every opportunity (worse). ''See [[Orcs]].''
*The common tendency to overlook the ''resolution'' part of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]; nearly everyone is focused on proving that the other guy is worse.
*The hell pit that is VfD. A sampler of the problems: the high number of new users who jump right into it without first learning the ropes, especially the ins and outs of fixing bad articles. The fact that voting "*'''Delete''', nn. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" or "*'''Keep'''. Stop deletion trolling. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" is so much easier than research, editing, and organization. That this leads to insane listings like [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mayor of Galway]]. That these listings just reinforce the aforementioned bad habits in the next wave of VfD newbies. That VfD is increasingly used as a means of solving content disputes: witness [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism]] (nothing especially remarkable about this one, it's just the most recent listing of this type.) And so on.
*Overreach by the Arbitration Committee: attempting to go beyond its writ of enforcing community norms and trying to set policy, without input from the broader community, through private communication channels. The insane "POV paroles". Obviously prejudiced arbitrators without the integrity to recuse themselves.
*Cliquishness. Why bother working for an NPOV article when you can just round up half a dozen friends and gang-revert the opposition until they quit in disgust?
*Rampant wikilawyering. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement]] was a great idea that has turned into an unmitigated disaster. Let us hope that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks]] dies a quiet, lonely death. ''It did. A certain user tried to claim it was "semi-policy" anyway.''
*Crucial discussions taking place, not on the wiki where anyone can join in, not on the mailing list where anyone can read or join with only a little more difficulty, but on IRC. These discussions going unannounced. Jealously guarding what was said on IRC. Cabal, anyone?
*The complete lack of taste and discretion in image use. Failure to consider the effect on our public reputation. Blinkered insistence on using images front and center, no matter how tasteless or shocking they might be.

Orcs

2005-04-30T21:24:01Z

Charles P.: some (naming no names) are both orcs and martinets

[[User:Xiong|English Wikipedia User Xiong]] coined the Tolkienesque term '''"orc"''' to describe a somewhat trollish user with unusual qualities of cleverness, persistence, and flexibility.

Orcs may or may not oppose trolls; they do not troll as intensely as a common troll. An orc masquerades as a genuine user, and may even make an occasional substantial contribution. An orc may fight a troll, or even another orc, hoping to steal the mantle of a [[Knight|knight]]; but often merely plods along in a [[groupthink]] vein, playing to the crowd, gathering support by acting with the mob, and occasionally looking to see where the mob is going -- and getting there first. He hopes to build up a reserve of public trust based on his frequent appearances on the "right" side of battles against [[Straw man|straw men]]. He may thus acquire [[Cat's paw|cat's paw]]s or [[Sparewheel|sparewheels]]. This is the orc's "passive mode".

When the orc shifts gears into "active mode", he fastens upon some object -- usually another user, but perhaps a group of users or an abstract concept -- and attempts to eradicate him, them, or it. He is unusually persistent ''and flexible'' in his attacks. Unlike trolls who generally "[[ignore all rules]]" except the most clearly established (since "rules" are so easily manipulated by orcs themselves - see below), the orc treads the edge of the acceptable, attempting to drag his opponent to this unsafe battleground. A successful orc attack is completed when his victim, not the orc, finally crosses the line into sanctionable action (c.f. [[MeatBall:Sucker Punch]] and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/More_heat_than_light]). But absent this satisfaction, the orc persists until ''he'' exceeds community tolerance.

Another feature of the orc is his fascination with policy. He avoids substantive contribution and manipulates policy to his own ends. His flexibility is key. When stymied at one point, he goes to higher ground, looking for some policy that can be creatively twisted to support his vendetta. He fades in and out of active and passive modes, from direct attack to subversion of process. If he perceives a gray area, he pushes it as far as it will go; then he switches sides and pushes there, too, until nothing is left but a fine line between right and wrong.

The real danger of the orc is not that he destroys other users; users can be replaced. It is not that he vandalizes articles, policies, and tools; they can be rebuilt.

The orc, by playing constantly in the gray area between "okay" and "not okay", forces the community to resort ever more frequently to formal procedure, tribunal, and written, explicit policy. That might almost be a [[Good Thing]], but a social group founded on more or less anarchic principles maintains its integrity via [[meatball:SoftSecurity]], which depends on some shared self-image and a certain level of '''mutual trust'''. Orderly anarchy, as opposed to chaos, depends on members working to ''avoid'' testing limits and provoking contention. By forcing the group, bit by bit, to adopt strict methods to exclude bad actions, '''the orc destroys orderly anarchy''' and replaces it with a slapped-together mess of improvisation -- ad-hocracy at its worst - which is easily manipulated by other orcs.

Orcs have a symbiotic relationship with [[martinet]]s, who strive to create an atmosphere of rules, obediance, and structure as an end in itself. Some manage to be both at once.

The Orc's destruction ''cannot be reverted''. Once that mutual trust is destroyed, there is no way to regain it; once resort to authority replaces shared consensus, it becomes the first resort in all cases. This social glue is precious and fragile, and the orc erodes it by his every act.

Thus the orc is the most dangerous of all troublesome users.

Charter/Sources/Cassandra

2005-04-30T20:54:09Z

Charles P.: note overlap

''[[Wikipedia:User:Mirv]]'s views on what is wrong with Wikipedia. The title is, of course, a reference to [[Wikipedia:Cassandra|the Trojan prophetess]], but on reflection this is more of a [[Wikipedia:jeremiad|jeremiad]], isn't it. There's some overlap and duplication between this and [[Charter/Drafts/Conflict Points]].''

[[Wikipedia:User:172|172]]'s departure and the reactions to it crystallized some worries I've been having about Wikipedia. He elucidates the central issue well:

:''whether nor not you are taken seriously depends not on the merit of your work but rather how many friends you have made with the users who dominate the mailing list, IRC, and the administrative pages.''
:''Instead, we have a dispute resolution process fetishizing increasingly rigid (and idiosyncratic) community norms and customs without reference to who's writing encyclopedic material and who's not.''

This fetishization of process is the worst issue. There are others:

*The ever-increasing power of sysops, which leads to:
**Sysops using their increased power to bully other users, and
***Those users responding by attempting to undermine the sysops at every turn (bad), or else
***sucking up to sysops, acting like wannabe secret policemen: gleefully pointing out everyone else's trangressions at every opportunity (worse). ''See [[Orcs]].''
*The common tendency to overlook the ''resolution'' part of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]; nearly everyone is focused on proving that the other guy is worse.
*The hell pit that is VfD. A sampler of the problems: the high number of new users who jump right into it without first learning the ropes, especially the ins and outs of fixing bad articles. The fact that voting "*'''Delete''', nn. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" or "*'''Keep'''. Stop deletion trolling. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" is so much easier than research, editing, and organization. That this leads to insane listings like [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mayor of Galway]]. That these listings just reinforce the aforementioned bad habits in the next wave of VfD newbies. That VfD is increasingly used as a means of solving content disputes: witness [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism]] (nothing especially remarkable about this one, it's just the most recent listing of this type.) And so on.
*Overreach by the Arbitration Committee: attempting to go beyond its writ of enforcing community norms and trying to set policy, without input from the broader community, through private communication channels. The insane "POV paroles". Obviously prejudiced arbitrators without the integrity to recuse themselves.
*Cliquishness. Why bother working for an NPOV article when you can just round up half a dozen friends and gang-revert the opposition until they quit in disgust?
*Rampant wikilawyering. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement]] was a great idea that has turned into an unmitigated disaster. Let us hope that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks]] dies a quiet, lonely death. ''It did. A certain user tried to claim it was "semi-policy" anyway.''
*Crucial discussions taking place, not on the wiki where anyone can join in, not on the mailing list where anyone can read or join with only a little more difficulty, but on IRC. These discussions going unannounced. Jealously guarding what was said on IRC. Cabal, anyone?
*The complete lack of taste and discretion in image use. Failure to consider the effect on our public reputation. Blinkered insistence on using images front and center, no matter how tasteless or shocking they might be.

Charter/Sources

2005-04-30T20:53:31Z

Charles P.:

{{:Charter/Nav}}

Source documents -- stuff we might want to rummage through, looking for a bolt or nut we can integrate into one draft or another. Please copy stuff in here to distinct subpages and try to fix some of the links.

* [[Charter/Sources/Right-of-way]]
* [[Charter/Sources/Sanger]]
* [[Charter/Sources/Simple view of ethics and morals]] - please comment
* [[Charter/Sources/Cassandra]]
*

Charter/Sources/Cassandra

2005-04-30T20:53:23Z

Charles P.: adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mirv/Cassandra

''[[Wikipedia:User:Mirv]]'s views on what is wrong with Wikipedia. The title is, of course, a reference to [[Wikipedia:Cassandra|the Trojan prophetess]], but on reflection this is more of a [[Wikipedia:jeremiad|jeremiad]], isn't it. ''

[[Wikipedia:User:172|172]]'s departure and the reactions to it crystallized some worries I've been having about Wikipedia. He elucidates the central issue well:

:''whether nor not you are taken seriously depends not on the merit of your work but rather how many friends you have made with the users who dominate the mailing list, IRC, and the administrative pages.''
:''Instead, we have a dispute resolution process fetishizing increasingly rigid (and idiosyncratic) community norms and customs without reference to who's writing encyclopedic material and who's not.''

This fetishization of process is the worst issue. There are others:

*The ever-increasing power of sysops, which leads to:
**Sysops using their increased power to bully other users, and
***Those users responding by attempting to undermine the sysops at every turn (bad), or else
***sucking up to sysops, acting like wannabe secret policemen: gleefully pointing out everyone else's trangressions at every opportunity (worse). ''See [[Orcs]].''
*The common tendency to overlook the ''resolution'' part of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]; nearly everyone is focused on proving that the other guy is worse.
*The hell pit that is VfD. A sampler of the problems: the high number of new users who jump right into it without first learning the ropes, especially the ins and outs of fixing bad articles. The fact that voting "*'''Delete''', nn. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" or "*'''Keep'''. Stop deletion trolling. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>" is so much easier than research, editing, and organization. That this leads to insane listings like [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mayor of Galway]]. That these listings just reinforce the aforementioned bad habits in the next wave of VfD newbies. That VfD is increasingly used as a means of solving content disputes: witness [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism]] (nothing especially remarkable about this one, it's just the most recent listing of this type.) And so on.
*Overreach by the Arbitration Committee: attempting to go beyond its writ of enforcing community norms and trying to set policy, without input from the broader community, through private communication channels. The insane "POV paroles". Obviously prejudiced arbitrators without the integrity to recuse themselves.
*Cliquishness. Why bother working for an NPOV article when you can just round up half a dozen friends and gang-revert the opposition until they quit in disgust?
*Rampant wikilawyering. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement]] was a great idea that has turned into an unmitigated disaster. Let us hope that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks]] dies a quiet, lonely death. ''It did. A certain user tried to claim it was "semi-policy" anyway.''
*Crucial discussions taking place, not on the wiki where anyone can join in, not on the mailing list where anyone can read or join with only a little more difficulty, but on IRC. These discussions going unannounced. Jealously guarding what was said on IRC. Cabal, anyone?
*The complete lack of taste and discretion in image use. Failure to consider the effect on our public reputation. Blinkered insistence on using images front and center, no matter how tasteless or shocking they might be.

en:Trolls

2005-04-27T23:58:59Z

Charles P.: Reverted edit of 64.254.131.88, changed back to last version by Guanaco

#REDIRECT [[Trolls]]

Charter/Drafts/Wikirules

2005-04-27T23:58:09Z

Charles P.:

{{:Charter/Nav}}

This content excerpted from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal Wikirules proposal].

== Text ==
''corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.'' —[[wikipedia:en:Tacitus|Tacitus]], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Tac.+Ann.+3.27 ''Annals'' 3.27]

Over the past four years, Wikipedia has grown from a tiny village where everyone knew each other into an enormous enterprise with thousands of users, hundreds of sysops, and an unknowable number of passersby. As the project grew, so did the number of rules governing Users, so that now, there are an unknowable amount of rules, which are being gamed regularly by some users. This causes frustration and, in turn, new rules, new games, more frustration, more rules, etc. Rules have been created to suit specific circumstances, which may no longer exist, to respond to particular threats, which likewise do not exist anymore, or just for a smaller community. Rules are found in or derived from various Wikipages, in emails, statements by Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, and various other sources. Rules are often cited and sometimes used as weapons, but sometimes with the preponderance of rules, it seems that we are forgetting the most important principles of Wikipedia: '''common sense''', '''trust''', and '''wikilove'''.

This proposal suggests that a committee be established to pare down the abundant rules to a reasonable size (1-2 pages) that every user and certainly every admin can be expected to know. These new rules, based on the principles of common sense and trust, would be easily accessible, and serve as a point of reference for all decisions and actions by community. Their purpose, first and foremost, would be to further the primary objective of this community--creating a world-class online encyclopedia. The rules would be stated in simple language and worded in such a way to allow the Arbitration and Mediation committees, as well as individual sysops, the discretion to enforce them reasonably. They would also contain an option for amendments, based on the specific needs of this evolving community.

The committee would consisted of trusted users and admins, as well as former and current members of the Arbitration and Mediation committees. Their discussions will be transparent, and open to critique by all members of the community, and the final result ''may'' be put up for a vote by the community at large. The committee would work in concert with the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Directors to ensure that the rules they create further the Foundation's goals.

Charter/Drafts/Wikirules

2005-04-27T23:57:59Z

Charles P.: + tacitean epigraph

{{:Charter/Nav}}

This content excerpted from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal Wikirules proposal].

== Text ==
''corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.'' —[[wikipedia:en:Tacitus|Tacitus]], [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Tac.+Ann.+3.27 ''Annals'' 3.27]
Over the past four years, Wikipedia has grown from a tiny village where everyone knew each other into an enormous enterprise with thousands of users, hundreds of sysops, and an unknowable number of passersby. As the project grew, so did the number of rules governing Users, so that now, there are an unknowable amount of rules, which are being gamed regularly by some users. This causes frustration and, in turn, new rules, new games, more frustration, more rules, etc. Rules have been created to suit specific circumstances, which may no longer exist, to respond to particular threats, which likewise do not exist anymore, or just for a smaller community. Rules are found in or derived from various Wikipages, in emails, statements by Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, and various other sources. Rules are often cited and sometimes used as weapons, but sometimes with the preponderance of rules, it seems that we are forgetting the most important principles of Wikipedia: '''common sense''', '''trust''', and '''wikilove'''.

This proposal suggests that a committee be established to pare down the abundant rules to a reasonable size (1-2 pages) that every user and certainly every admin can be expected to know. These new rules, based on the principles of common sense and trust, would be easily accessible, and serve as a point of reference for all decisions and actions by community. Their purpose, first and foremost, would be to further the primary objective of this community--creating a world-class online encyclopedia. The rules would be stated in simple language and worded in such a way to allow the Arbitration and Mediation committees, as well as individual sysops, the discretion to enforce them reasonably. They would also contain an option for amendments, based on the specific needs of this evolving community.

The committee would consisted of trusted users and admins, as well as former and current members of the Arbitration and Mediation committees. Their discussions will be transparent, and open to critique by all members of the community, and the final result ''may'' be put up for a vote by the community at large. The committee would work in concert with the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Directors to ensure that the rules they create further the Foundation's goals.

Charter/Drafts/Conflict Points

2005-04-27T18:18:41Z

Charles P.: headers

{{:Charter/Nav}}

== Problems ==

Solvable problems

# Insufficient humility and fairness in exercising authority.
# Increasing problems with editors drawn to the site solely for POV pushing.
# Irresponsible handling of images with sexual content.
# Socks.
# Factionalism
# Policy stagnation caused by conflict-adverse attitudes
# 3RR disaster.
# VfD disaster.

Unsolvable problems

# Chronic failure of technological progress to keep pace with growth.
# Factors leading to departure of, e.g. 172, and other editors with deep knowledge in particular fields
# Editor churn leading to shortage of seasoned volunteers

== Solutions ==
The goal is to solve the solvable problems and mitigate the ill effects of the unsolvable problems.

# Fewer overall policies with more bright-line distinctions => less need to exercise authority
:# Move away from "voting" process for deletion in favor of objective criteria regarding, e.g. schools; require (for example) a minimum number of words or some other standard of comprehensiveness
:# Clear delineation of site policy from editing guidelines and suggestions
:# Eliminate rules that are easy to break inadvertently e.g. 3rr
:# Enforce rules with technology where appropriate
:# Well defined policy for external links and book links to deal with spam
:# Have judgement-based decisions made by small groups rather than individuals
# Technical measures to deal with socks => fewer socks, more trust of new users => trusting environment
# More admins => more shallow power gradient => humility
# Well defined means for policy creation and modification => less stagnation, less conflict over policy
# Make humility and fairness a goal => end in itself
# Sexual content policy: site has to grow up beyond its cryptonaut roots and acknowledge its role as an information source
# 3rr: fix it or scrap it, or make a technical limit for number of edits to an article

Charter/Drafts/Conflict Points

2005-04-27T18:17:28Z

Charles P.: add factionalism; I'd like to think it's solvable but it may not be

{{:Charter/Nav}}

== Text ==

Solvable problems

# Insufficient humility and fairness in exercising authority.
# Increasing problems with editors drawn to the site solely for POV pushing.
# Irresponsible handling of images with sexual content.
# Socks.
# Factionalism
# Policy stagnation caused by conflict-adverse attitudes
# 3RR disaster.
# VfD disaster.

Unsolvable problems

# Chronic failure of technological progress to keep pace with growth.
# Factors leading to departure of, e.g. 172, and other editors with deep knowledge in particular fields
# Editor churn leading to shortage of seasoned volunteers

The goal is to solve the solvable problems and mitigate the ill effects of the unsolvable problems.

# Fewer overall policies with more bright-line distinctions => less need to exercise authority
:# Move away from "voting" process for deletion in favor of objective criteria regarding, e.g. schools; require (for example) a minimum number of words or some other standard of comprehensiveness
:# Clear delineation of site policy from editing guidelines and suggestions
:# Eliminate rules that are easy to break inadvertently e.g. 3rr
:# Enforce rules with technology where appropriate
:# Well defined policy for external links and book links to deal with spam
:# Have judgement-based decisions made by small groups rather than individuals
# Technical measures to deal with socks => fewer socks, more trust of new users => trusting environment
# More admins => more shallow power gradient => humility
# Well defined means for policy creation and modification => less stagnation, less conflict over policy
# Make humility and fairness a goal => end in itself
# Sexual content policy: site has to grow up beyond its cryptonaut roots and acknowledge its role as an information source
# 3rr: fix it or scrap it, or make a technical limit for number of edits to an article

Charter/Drafts/Conflict Points

2005-04-27T18:16:52Z

Charles P.: reorganize the solvable problems into problems of people and problems of laws

{{:Charter/Nav}}

== Text ==

Solvable problems

# Insufficient humility and fairness in exercising authority.
# Increasing problems with editors drawn to the site solely for POV pushing.
# Irresponsible handling of images with sexual content.
# Socks.
# Policy stagnation caused by conflict-adverse attitudes
# 3RR disaster.
# VfD disaster.

Unsolvable problems

# Chronic failure of technological progress to keep pace with growth.
# Factors leading to departure of, e.g. 172, and other editors with deep knowledge in particular fields
# Editor churn leading to shortage of seasoned volunteers

The goal is to solve the solvable problems and mitigate the ill effects of the unsolvable problems.

# Fewer overall policies with more bright-line distinctions => less need to exercise authority
:# Move away from "voting" process for deletion in favor of objective criteria regarding, e.g. schools; require (for example) a minimum number of words or some other standard of comprehensiveness
:# Clear delineation of site policy from editing guidelines and suggestions
:# Eliminate rules that are easy to break inadvertently e.g. 3rr
:# Enforce rules with technology where appropriate
:# Well defined policy for external links and book links to deal with spam
:# Have judgement-based decisions made by small groups rather than individuals
# Technical measures to deal with socks => fewer socks, more trust of new users => trusting environment
# More admins => more shallow power gradient => humility
# Well defined means for policy creation and modification => less stagnation, less conflict over policy
# Make humility and fairness a goal => end in itself
# Sexual content policy: site has to grow up beyond its cryptonaut roots and acknowledge its role as an information source
# 3rr: fix it or scrap it, or make a technical limit for number of edits to an article

Talk:Charter/Drafts/Conflict Points

2005-04-27T18:12:48Z

Charles P.:

Wow, this reflects almost exactly the problems that made me want to quit: [[wikipedia:en:User:Mirv/Cassandra]]. I'm going to adapt some of that for this page. [[User:Charles P.|Charles P.]] 13:12, 27 Apr 2005 (CDT)

User:Charles P.

2005-04-27T18:06:22Z

Charles P.:

[[metawikipedia:user:Mirv]]