Anarchopedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Xiong

2006-04-09T02:55:04Z

Xiong: /* AI */ sorry

{{:Charter/Nav}}

Talk to me! :)

:ä»Šæ—¥ã¯- This is æ—¥æœ¬èªž for Good day. Hi! So, I'm here.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] 04:34, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Speaking of chewing on things, I've left something for you at [[Charter/General]]. And now I'm going to bed. :-) [[User:JRM|JRM]] 18:13, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)

----

"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, 'See, this is new'? It has already been, in the ages before us." -- Ecclesiastes, 1:9-10

Read the [[MeatBall:MeatballWiki]].

There is also some good material on [http://meta.wikipedia.org the meta].

[[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)

== String-pulling ==

''Is Jimbo's power truly unlimited?''
Theoretically, yes. In practice, of course, Jimbo will not be interested in playing God over the wiki, because this would destroy the encyclopedia he believes in. We don't have to fear that the developers or the board will ''actually'' bypass the community—they'd kill the goose laying the golden eggs
The only point is that they ''could''. The developers ultimately control all access to the database; the foundation (and by extension the board) ultimately controls the physical resources of the project. Though Wikipedia's independence is continuously increased, the buck must always stop somewhere, and even a well-meaning group of professionals have the potential to make catastrophic decisions.

The only loophole is the possibility of forking. If something truly disastrous happened to Wikipedia, then we could simply set up a new one, using the content of the old one, which can never be withheld. Since forking is a very expensive operation (in all ways imaginable) the event sparking it needs to be so serious that it a significant part of the community wants to put the effort into a fork. It's happened in the beginning with the Spanish Wikipedia, some of whose contributors didn't agree with the then-current power structure, but this was when there was little to fork (and efforts are still underway to undo it). The effort needed to make a fork of the English Wikipedia successful would be Herculean, and the developers and the board therefore have a lot of leeway to do considerable damage to Wikipedia if they insisted on bypassing the community on something—which, of course, they don't, as I explained above. [[User:JRM|JRM]] 04:53, 17 Apr 2005 (CDT)

: Well, there you go. Power tremendous; power awesome; but ''not'' power unlimited. I cannot imagine that matters will go to that extreme. I just think it is time we, as a community, grow up a little and take responsibility for our own actions. As you say, Jimbo and the Board seem to have little interest in the internal organiziation of the community -- or at least prefer to watch, rather than interfere. It's time for an experiment in open government. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 10:06, 19 Apr 2005 (CDT)

== AI ==

I am just wandering are you sure that articles about AI should stay on this Anarchopedia (Meta) and not on [[:eng:|English version]]? Unlike (English) Wikipedia, it is OK to keep even personal essays on (English) Anarchopedia. While Meta is the right place for organizational issues of Charter, I think that English Anarchopedia is a better place for encyclopedic and similar articles... This is just an advice. If you have some reason why to keep AI articles here, I don't have anything against it. --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

: I tried that, but I can't upload images to eng:anarcho. My account there is too new. Anyway, I'll be deleting all this cruft as soon as I have it worked out. Sorry for any inconvenience. — [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]] 13:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that you can upload image here and use it on eng: because Anarchopedias on MediaWiki 1.6 are using the same repository for images (this one); something like Commons on Wikimedia. --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 14:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

: Sorry for any inconvenience. — [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]] 02:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

File:bluechess.jpg

2006-04-08T15:15:13Z

Xiong: self-made

self-made

User talk:Millosh

2006-04-08T13:57:57Z

Xiong: Cruft

hi! :) thanks for the welcome :) [[User:Tsunamic|Tsunamic]] 14:58, 30 Sep 2004 (CDT)

== Main page ==

Main page needs organizing, but that doesn't mean you should remove all the links in the mean time. --[[User:Paragon|Paragon]] 11:02, 2 Oct 2004 (CDT)

== New Main Page ==

Uh, it's all in Russian, and a bit glitchy. 
Thx for the welcome. --[[User:Paragon|Paragon]] 11:16, 2 Oct 2004 (CDT)

==Spanish==
I let the old link for Spanish today because the Spanish translator hat to find it!
It is no problem to move within the week
--[[User:Oui|Oui]] 15:51, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)

== Hey there ==

Hey there! Glad to be aboard, we'll see how it goes, eh? [[User:Emeraldimp|emeraldimp]] 23:55, 7 Oct 2004 (CDT)

== Please reconsider your appearance theme ==

(pasted from discussion on main page...)

I work on user interfaces in my day job, and although I can sympathize with the apparent intent of this visual appearance, if you will take these comments as a constructive criticism - this appearance is a big mistake!

Although it might be an effective gimmick to use a reversed text appearance for the front page, to use this appearance theme globally will make it too difficult to use the site for hours at a time. (I've only read a few pages, and I already have a headache from the harsh appearance of the text - especially on the talk pages.) There is a reason why reversed text is used sparingly - it is simply too tiring to the human eye to look at reversed text for long periods of time.

If you ever want this site to grow beyond an opening statement, into a site with real "legs", you'll inevitably need to use a more sane text color scheme for the bulk of your pages, as serious readers will simply not put up with this look.

Computer screens used to have this appearance a few decades ago, but once it became feasible to show high contrast, black on white text, user interface designers, and later almost all users, quickly abandoned the bizarre-looking reverse text appearance en masse, and this apperance has now faded into obscurity. These days you only see this scheme in odd places - point of sale terminals used in discount stores, or in military installations that are stuck on the macho green on black thing. :)

Please, more serious discussion and articles, and fewer gimmicks with the appearance. You've got a great start here on an alternative to Wikipedia, so please don't turn away your potential audience because of a gimmicky design that makes it tiring to read your text! --[[User:69.110.24.8|69.110.24.8]] 13:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*I am not designer and I would like not to work on user interface. Also, here are some notes: --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 14:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*#Maybe I am not like others, but it is more easy for me to read white letter at black background. Of course, faction of Unix admins is not relevant part of community :) --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 14:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*#All users can change their skins. The question is only default and we can vote about default (I will vote for usual colors (black letter, white background or something like that) because of your reasons; as well as I will use this (inverse) skin for myself :) But, we should see what others think.). --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 14:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*#I'll make virtual host "test-design.anarchopedia.org" where you (and others) can test design. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 14:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*#Also, it seems that you didn't log in and I don't know who you are. And I would like to know :) Of course, if you don't prefer to work anonymously. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 14:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*#And, the most important thing: This is anarchist project. I started it, but I am not the only who is making decisions. Decisions are made by all of users. So, I think we should move this talk to: [[Anarchopedia:en:Design]]. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 14:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*#Also, I didn't see that anyone is designer here. I think you should have initiative about that questions. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 14:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::: I think #2 is the important one. We already can choose whatever skins we want. If I didn't like Anarchopedia's design, I would have changed it already. As far as what the default should look like, I don't really have an opinion. [[User:Lance Murdoch|Lance Murdoch]] 01:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::: I understand that default is important for new users. (New users maybe don't know how to change skin; maybe they are too lazy to change it; etc.) Also, in this moment we have only A-Monobook style; we don't have original Monobook (or we don't have usable original Monobook). So, we should think about what new users like to see. (As I said, it seems that I am not so relevant: White letters with black background is easy to read for me.) If competent person says that it is obsolate, we should take care about it. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 03:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Meta Question ==

Pray tell, what goes in the meta. and what goes in the eng.? The factions are currently all in the meta, but is this merely because they haven't been moved yet? Or is the meta a repository of things that are administrational in nature? --[[User:atotland|Anni]] 10:30, 5 Jan 2005 (JAP)
:I think that Meta should be repository of things that are administrational in nature. I don't have an idea should it be copied on eng: or not. Do you think that it should be done in some other way? Btw, you are from Japan? Do you want Anarchopedia in Japanese language? :) --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 19:45, 4 Jan 2005 (CST)
::No, from Norway. But I wouldn't mind doing it in Norwegian, perhaps. Regardlessy, I have some ideas regarding factions, that might be fun? Tell me if you care.. --[[User:atotland|Anni]] 00:31, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)
:::It's OK :) The idea about factions came from trolls. Almost all of texts about factions are written by some of them. And it became the part of Anarchopedia's identity. Also, all of contributors works on the Anarchopedia's identity. And I don't see any problem if all of us are writting about Anarchopedia's identity. --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 06:06, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)
:::And about Japan: I don't know why system said that you are in JAP time zone... --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 06:06, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)
::::I am a Norwegian, currently living in Japan :)
::::Also, what I meant for the factions was making them actual administrative (political?) units, where every user is assosiated with a faction and it's points of view, and Site-Wide political questions are decided using free voting on suggestions proposed by the factions. I'm gonna write a better explanation in the [[Anarchopedia:en:Faction|faction]]s talkspace. --[[User:atotland|Anni]] 07:35, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)
::::And while I'm at it, is case sensitivity really necessary? --[[User:atotland|Anni]] 07:36, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)

:::::Factions Question/Propsal [[Anarchopedia talk:en:Faction|here]].

== Jumping ==

I miss a control for moving easily from one page in the meta or eng to the corresponding page on the other side. Would it be impossible to add a widget (say, under the toolbox) "This page in:" (meta, eng, fra, spa, deu). For easy jumping and editing. Is that your boat? --[[User:atotland|Anni]] 02:22, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)
:See [[Anarchopedia:eng:Syndicate]] --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 06:12, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)

== Logo vote ==

Hey Milo, I was thinking it might be a good idea to copy the news item regarding the logo vote from meta to eng, deu, etc. [[User:Christiaan|Christiaan]] 16:01, 25 Jan 2005 (CST)
:Yes, it is good idea and you don't need to ask to copy :) --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 06:55, 26 Jan 2005 (CST)

Shall we put a closing date on voting for the logo? â€”[[User:Christiaan|Christiaan]] 16:08, 4 Feb 2005 (CST)
== Ð‘Ð¾Ð½Ð·Ð¾ ÑÐ²ÑƒÐ´Ð° Bonzo everywhere ==
Ð”Ð° Ð¿Ð¾Ð·Ð´Ñ€Ð°Ð²Ð¸Ð¼ Ð¼Ð¾Ð³ Ð´Ñ€ÑƒÐ³Ð° Ð¸ ÐºÐ°Ð¾ Ð¸ ÑƒÐ²ÐµÐº Ð´Ð° Ð½Ð°Ð¿Ñ€Ð°Ð²Ð¸Ð¼ Ð³ÑƒÐ¶Ð²Ñƒ :).
[[User:bonzo|Ð‘Ð¾Ð·Ð°Ð»Ð¾ ÐÐµÐ±Ð¾Ñ˜ÑˆÐ°]] 20:30, 7 Mar 2005 (CST)

== HI Here ==

Hi, i'm french, i want to create a forum phpbb for anarchopedia's users (a french or a english forum)

Do yo agree ???

ThAnks

<s>I agree. Do you want to make it on Anarchopedia server or not? --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 14:07, 16 May 2005 (CDT)</s>

Please, look at [[Anarchopedia:en:proposal for new project]]. --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 14:13, 16 May 2005 (CDT)

== Spam ==

Hi Milosh,

It's enough. Please Block every access to the server from IP 69.50.#.# . --[[User:X|X]] 20:50, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

== Cruft ==

I've replied. — [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]] 13:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Xiong

2006-04-08T13:57:28Z

Xiong: /* AI */ tried that, sorry

File:carmaker-robots.jpg

2006-04-08T12:21:30Z

Xiong: unrestricted free license

unrestricted free license

File:asimo.jpg

2006-04-08T12:20:08Z

Xiong: cc-sa 2.x

cc-sa 2.x

File:my-robot.jpg

2006-04-08T11:23:41Z

Xiong: self-made

self-made

File:three-laws-safe.jpg

2006-04-08T07:10:17Z

Xiong: self-made

self-made

File:roy-tyrell.jpg

2006-04-08T06:34:26Z

Xiong: from en:w:; fair use

from en:w:; fair use

Template:Pd

2006-04-08T03:38:58Z

Xiong:

#redirect [[Template:public domain image]]

File:aibo.jpg

2006-04-08T03:37:29Z

Xiong:

{{public domain image}} from en:w

File:aibo.jpg

2006-04-08T03:36:49Z

Xiong: {{pd}} from en:w

{{pd}} from en:w

File:chessturk.jpg

2006-04-08T00:53:13Z

Xiong:

File:chessturk.jpg

2006-04-08T00:52:17Z

Xiong: {{pd}}

User:Xiong

2006-04-08T00:22:27Z

Xiong:

{{:AI/Nav}}

{{:Charter/Nav}}
Yes, I'm the same Xiong as on Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me by email at '''xiong@mochamail.com''' -- click the Chinese character in my sig.

Invite other responsible Wikipedians to join the '''Charter Caucus''', but ''please do not link to these pages on any Wikipedia page.'' That is the same thing as '''ending''' the caucus and putting the discussion back into the general community.

We ''will do this thing'', but not ''quite'' yet.

The '''Main Page''' and starting point for the entire '''Charter''' effort is:

: [[Charter/Main]].

The central page for discussion of caucus itself is:

: [[Charter/Caucus]].

See you there! [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 15:25, 14 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Talk:Charter/Main

2005-06-11T20:54:44Z

Xiong: one thing leads to another

Just one note about the text on the main page. I think that 'governance' is not good enough word for "Anarchopedia's interest". But, I am not native English speaker and I think that you (Xiong) would find some better word (or words) for that (something like: organization or managing; but I am sure that you know some better word :) ). Thanks :) --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 18:44, 29 May 2005 (CDT)

: That edit was put in by [[User:Troll Bridge on the River Kwai]] -- not that I have any problem with it.

: When I went looking for a place to host this Charter Caucus, I stumbled on Anarchopedia and settled here -- squatted if you will -- without any real idea of the relation of this project to Wikipedia. I just wanted to find a wiki ''apart'' from Wikipedia where fundemental changes could be discussed in a civilized fashion without fools and rent-a-cops barging in and yelling "this discussion is invalid!"

: Now I see that the relationship between these two wikis is highly charged -- either this is exactly the right place for this discussion, or absolutely the wrong one -- I don't know.

: Anyway, I have effectively resigned from Wikipedia; at the very least, I'm on a long Wikivacation. I'm no longer sure there is any way to keep that community from spiraling into a behavioral sink -- I probably got there a year too late to head off the disaster. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 15:54, 11 Jun 2005 (CDT)

Charter/Drafts

2005-05-29T14:31:45Z

Xiong: title

{{:Charter/Nav}}

== Directory ==

Please make a ''new page'' for each source draft. We don't need to edit war over our proposals! Please name each new page with the pseudo-namespace "Charter/Drafts/". Thank you.

* [[Charter/Drafts/Simplified Ruleset]]

* [[Charter/Drafts/Conflict Points]]

* [[Charter/Drafts/Wikirules]]

* [[Charter/Drafts/Trifecta]]

* [[Charter/Drafts/Jo]] (Tyranny of Structurelessness) -- new!

*

Charter/Main

2005-05-29T14:30:36Z

Xiong: fix nav link

{{:Charter/Nav}}

This charter pertains mainly to [[Wikipedia]], and to any project aiming to succeed it as the default [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. It is hosted here instead of Meta Wikipedia, which is too closely linked to Wikipedia and [[Wikimedia]], on account of [[Anarchopedia:Itself]]'s long-standing interest in [[GFDL corpus]] governance issues.

== Directory ==

Please link all Charter Caucus pages ''here''. For simplicity, please create any '''new''' pages with the pseudo-namespace "Charter/". Thank you.

* {{:[[Charter/Nav]]}} -- add to top of each page

* [[Charter/Main]] -- this page; a hub only for all other pages

* [[Charter/Caucus]] -- information about the Caucus itself, including terms of membership (or lack thereof)

* [[Charter/Members]] -- directory of Charter Caucus members ''Add your handle here.''

* [[Charter/Preamble]] -- why we must have a Charter

* [[Charter/Terms]] -- definitions of terms, external links, etc.

* [[Charter/Drafts]] -- directory of draft Charters ''Create a new page for each draft and link it here.''

* [[Charter/Nav]] -- navigation template ''[[Talk:Charter/Nav|Put this]] at the top of every page''

* [[Charter/General]] -- general caucus discussion area. '''Talk here.'''

* [[Charter/Sources]] -- source material of all kinds

== Milestones ==

* 2005 Apr 14 -- Caucus formed.

Charter/Drafts/Jo

2005-05-29T14:29:44Z

Xiong: fix nav

{{:Charter/Nav}}

This excerpted from [http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html The Tyranny of Structurelessness] by Jo Freeman (1970) [http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/pdf/booklets/structurelessness.html PDF]

=== Principles of Democratic Structuring ===

Once the movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of 'structurelessness', it will be free to develop those forms of organisation best suited to its healthy functioning. This does not mean that we should go to the other extreme and blindly imitate the traditional forms of organisation. But neither should we blindly reject them all . Some traditional techniques will prove useful, albeit not perfect; some will give us insights into what we should not do to obtain certain ends with minimal costs to the individuals in the movement. Mostly, we will have to experiment with different kinds of structuring and develop a variety of techniques to use for different situations. The 'lot system' is one such idea which has emerged from the movement. It is not applicable to all situations, but it is useful, in some. Other ideas for structuring are needed. But before we can proceed to experiment intelligently, we must accept the idea that there is nothing inherently bad about structure itself - only its excessive use.

While engaging in this trial-and-error process, there are some principles we can keep in mind that are essential to democratic structuring and are politically effective also:

1 Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks by default only means they are not dependably done. If people are selected to do a task, preferably after expressing an interest or willingness to do it, they have made a commitment which cannot easily be ignored.

2 Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to all those who selected them. This is how the group has control over people in positions of authority. Individuals may exercise power, but it is the group that has the ultimate say over how the power is exercised.

3 Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of exercising it. It also gives many people an opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn specific skills.

4 Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's 'property' and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn her job well and acquire a sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.

5 Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. Selecting someone for a position because they are liked by the group, or giving them hard work because they are disliked, serves neither the group nor the person in the long run. Ability, interest and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. People should be given an opportunity to learn skills they do not have, but this is best done through some sort of 'apprenticeship' programme rather than the 'sink or swim' method. Having a responsibility one can't handle well is demoralising. Conversely, being blackballed from what one can do well does not encourage one to develop one's skills. Women have been punished for being competent throughout most of human history - the movement does not need to repeat this process.

6 Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one's power. When an informal network spreads new ideas and information among themselves outside the group, they are already engaged in the process of forming an opinion - without the group participating. The more one knows about how things work, the more politically effective one can be.

7 Equal access to resources needed by the group. This is not always perfectly possible, but should be striven for. A member who maintains a monopoly over a needed resource (like a printing press or a darkroom owned by a husband) can unduly influence the use of that resource. Skills and information are also resources. Members' skills and information can be equally available only when members are willing to teach what they know to others.

When these principles are applied, they ensure that whatever structures are developed by different movement groups will be controlled by and be responsible to the group. The group of people in positions of authority will be diffuse, flexible, open and temporary. They will not be in such an easy position to institutionalise their power because ultimate decisions will be made by the group at large. The group will have the power to determine who shall exercise authority within it.

Charter/Drafts/Jo

2005-05-29T14:22:45Z

Xiong: add nav

{{Charter/Nav}}

This excerpted from [http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html The Tyranny of Structurelessness] by Jo Freeman (1970) [http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/pdf/booklets/structurelessness.html PDF]

=== Principles of Democratic Structuring ===

Once the movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of 'structurelessness', it will be free to develop those forms of organisation best suited to its healthy functioning. This does not mean that we should go to the other extreme and blindly imitate the traditional forms of organisation. But neither should we blindly reject them all . Some traditional techniques will prove useful, albeit not perfect; some will give us insights into what we should not do to obtain certain ends with minimal costs to the individuals in the movement. Mostly, we will have to experiment with different kinds of structuring and develop a variety of techniques to use for different situations. The 'lot system' is one such idea which has emerged from the movement. It is not applicable to all situations, but it is useful, in some. Other ideas for structuring are needed. But before we can proceed to experiment intelligently, we must accept the idea that there is nothing inherently bad about structure itself - only its excessive use.

While engaging in this trial-and-error process, there are some principles we can keep in mind that are essential to democratic structuring and are politically effective also:

1 Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks by default only means they are not dependably done. If people are selected to do a task, preferably after expressing an interest or willingness to do it, they have made a commitment which cannot easily be ignored.

2 Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to all those who selected them. This is how the group has control over people in positions of authority. Individuals may exercise power, but it is the group that has the ultimate say over how the power is exercised.

3 Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of exercising it. It also gives many people an opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn specific skills.

4 Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's 'property' and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn her job well and acquire a sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.

5 Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. Selecting someone for a position because they are liked by the group, or giving them hard work because they are disliked, serves neither the group nor the person in the long run. Ability, interest and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. People should be given an opportunity to learn skills they do not have, but this is best done through some sort of 'apprenticeship' programme rather than the 'sink or swim' method. Having a responsibility one can't handle well is demoralising. Conversely, being blackballed from what one can do well does not encourage one to develop one's skills. Women have been punished for being competent throughout most of human history - the movement does not need to repeat this process.

6 Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one's power. When an informal network spreads new ideas and information among themselves outside the group, they are already engaged in the process of forming an opinion - without the group participating. The more one knows about how things work, the more politically effective one can be.

7 Equal access to resources needed by the group. This is not always perfectly possible, but should be striven for. A member who maintains a monopoly over a needed resource (like a printing press or a darkroom owned by a husband) can unduly influence the use of that resource. Skills and information are also resources. Members' skills and information can be equally available only when members are willing to teach what they know to others.

When these principles are applied, they ensure that whatever structures are developed by different movement groups will be controlled by and be responsible to the group. The group of people in positions of authority will be diffuse, flexible, open and temporary. They will not be in such an easy position to institutionalise their power because ultimate decisions will be made by the group at large. The group will have the power to determine who shall exercise authority within it.

Charter/Main

2005-05-29T14:22:12Z

Xiong: add copy-and-paste nav link

{{:Charter/Nav}}

This charter pertains mainly to [[Wikipedia]], and to any project aiming to succeed it as the default [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. It is hosted here instead of Meta Wikipedia, which is too closely linked to Wikipedia and [[Wikimedia]], on account of [[Anarchopedia:Itself]]'s long-standing interest in [[GFDL corpus]] governance issues.

== Directory ==

Please link all Charter Caucus pages ''here''. For simplicity, please create any '''new''' pages with the pseudo-namespace "Charter/". Thank you.

* {{[[:Charter/Nav]]}} -- add to top of each page

* [[Charter/Main]] -- this page; a hub only for all other pages

* [[Charter/Caucus]] -- information about the Caucus itself, including terms of membership (or lack thereof)

* [[Charter/Members]] -- directory of Charter Caucus members ''Add your handle here.''

* [[Charter/Preamble]] -- why we must have a Charter

* [[Charter/Terms]] -- definitions of terms, external links, etc.

* [[Charter/Drafts]] -- directory of draft Charters ''Create a new page for each draft and link it here.''

* [[Charter/Nav]] -- navigation template ''[[Talk:Charter/Nav|Put this]] at the top of every page''

* [[Charter/General]] -- general caucus discussion area. '''Talk here.'''

* [[Charter/Sources]] -- source material of all kinds

== Milestones ==

* 2005 Apr 14 -- Caucus formed.

Charter/Drafts/Jo

2005-05-29T14:19:00Z

Xiong:

This excerpted from [http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html The Tyranny of Structurelessness] by Jo Freeman (1970) [http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/pdf/booklets/structurelessness.html PDF]

=== Principles of Democratic Structuring ===

Once the movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of 'structurelessness', it will be free to develop those forms of organisation best suited to its healthy functioning. This does not mean that we should go to the other extreme and blindly imitate the traditional forms of organisation. But neither should we blindly reject them all . Some traditional techniques will prove useful, albeit not perfect; some will give us insights into what we should not do to obtain certain ends with minimal costs to the individuals in the movement. Mostly, we will have to experiment with different kinds of structuring and develop a variety of techniques to use for different situations. The 'lot system' is one such idea which has emerged from the movement. It is not applicable to all situations, but it is useful, in some. Other ideas for structuring are needed. But before we can proceed to experiment intelligently, we must accept the idea that there is nothing inherently bad about structure itself - only its excessive use.

While engaging in this trial-and-error process, there are some principles we can keep in mind that are essential to democratic structuring and are politically effective also:

1 Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks by default only means they are not dependably done. If people are selected to do a task, preferably after expressing an interest or willingness to do it, they have made a commitment which cannot easily be ignored.

2 Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to all those who selected them. This is how the group has control over people in positions of authority. Individuals may exercise power, but it is the group that has the ultimate say over how the power is exercised.

3 Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of exercising it. It also gives many people an opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn specific skills.

4 Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's 'property' and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn her job well and acquire a sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.

5 Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. Selecting someone for a position because they are liked by the group, or giving them hard work because they are disliked, serves neither the group nor the person in the long run. Ability, interest and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. People should be given an opportunity to learn skills they do not have, but this is best done through some sort of 'apprenticeship' programme rather than the 'sink or swim' method. Having a responsibility one can't handle well is demoralising. Conversely, being blackballed from what one can do well does not encourage one to develop one's skills. Women have been punished for being competent throughout most of human history - the movement does not need to repeat this process.

6 Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one's power. When an informal network spreads new ideas and information among themselves outside the group, they are already engaged in the process of forming an opinion - without the group participating. The more one knows about how things work, the more politically effective one can be.

7 Equal access to resources needed by the group. This is not always perfectly possible, but should be striven for. A member who maintains a monopoly over a needed resource (like a printing press or a darkroom owned by a husband) can unduly influence the use of that resource. Skills and information are also resources. Members' skills and information can be equally available only when members are willing to teach what they know to others.

When these principles are applied, they ensure that whatever structures are developed by different movement groups will be controlled by and be responsible to the group. The group of people in positions of authority will be diffuse, flexible, open and temporary. They will not be in such an easy position to institutionalise their power because ultimate decisions will be made by the group at large. The group will have the power to determine who shall exercise authority within it.

Charter/Drafts

2005-05-29T14:15:34Z

Xiong: add jo

Charter/Caucus

2005-05-29T14:03:26Z

Xiong: /* Membership */ loosen requirements to mere suggestions.

{{:Charter/Nav}}
== Invitation ==

A Wikipedian wrote to me to talk about one of the many pages on which some form of Charter or constitution for the Wikipedian Community is being debated. The hope was expressed that "After some time has passed, we will be able to present the results of [this] process to the community...."

'''But''' that's the ''trouble'' with using the Wikipedia wiki to discuss '''foundation issues'''. Some time does not need to pass at all. Every page is ''already'' in the (political) public domain. Any member of Wikipedia can and will have something to say about it, may or may not edit it. It will not have the opportunity to mature before it has been debated to death. Supporters and detractors will accumulate in roughly equal numbers, and the proposal will stall.

A wiki is a technical tool that facilitates online discussion between members of a group; by technical design, almost all pages run by the Wikimedia Foundation are open to be read and edited by almost everyone in the world. So, writing a Charter under these conditions is somewhat like sitting down in the middle of Times Square and trying to write the US Constitution. You will not lack for good ideas; but you will be swamped by the urgings of passing winos.

'''This is politics'''; and human nature is no different when the humans are wiki users -- old wine in new bottles. If you seek a political solution, you need to use political tools. One such tool is the ''caucus'', and this is what we want to build. A caucus comes together, more or less privately, to create a proposal and iron out some of its weaknesses, and discuss methods of presenting that proposal to the larger community.

By "privately", I mean to say that a caucus generally forms at a convention when some group of members drift into a quiet corner and speak quietly amongst themselves. A caucus may be closed, but it is generally left open to any who drift in the same direction. Most caucuses are informal; but of course you have heard the term used by groups who wish to so self-identify; they are not caucuses at all, really, but parties.

Please do not imagine that any single effort constitutes a general convention, or that there is a definite beginning to such. '''Right at this moment, the Wikipedian Community ''is'' in a state of convention!''' Again, by virtue of the ''technical'' structure of the engine, all members are in constant communication -- that is one condition. And right now, there is a fast-growing sentiment that Something Must Be Done, and discussions are flaring up like wildfires on page after page. ''A community convenes to discuss foundation issues when it thinks it has done so.'' Not when some strong voice calls the convention to order -- that is a later step.

* The Charter Convention has already begun.

If you have read all that, you will see why we seek to form a caucus. We would like to assemble two things: A group of like-minded individuals, for one; and a collection of Charter drafts, whatever names currently attach to them. We would like to see if a small working group cannot iron out the differences between competing drafts to produce a workable proposal which we can all support. That ironing out process will be facilitated by use of a wiki, but '''not''' one open to general view and editing -- not yet.

I have a dog in the fight -- my own draft Charter -- indeed, two or three such drafts. But I don't imagine a caucus will dance to my tune. We will bring our various drafts to the table and see what we can use from each one.

The purpose of a caucus is '''not''' to advance a particular, predetermined point of view -- that is the work of a party. A caucus's purpose is to '''discover''' a mutual meeting ground, so that something coherent may be presented to the general convention.

Our concern is that a convention, especially an ad hoc convention with little precedent, is guaranteed to debate without result until some subgroup, through strength of numbers, prominence, authority, or force of arms takes control. The only alternative is stagnation and eventual dispersal.

We should like, when the time comes, to have prepared a reasonable working draft of a '''Wikipedian Community Charter''', one which all of us can support, which we may present to the convention of the general membership at large. There will begin a contentious round of debate, on two levels: Some will seek to revise the draft; others to trash it entirely. Our success in that round will depend entirely on the unity we have constructed beforehand, in the caucus ''we invite '''you''' to join today.'' [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 15:46, 14 Apr 2005 (CDT)

== Membership ==

The whole point of holding caucus is to discuss apart from the uproar of the general convention. We cannot hold a caucus in the middle of the floor. Our Caucus is open, but membership '''implies''' presence within the "room".

We suggest that you invite members to caucus by asking for an email, or by sending email. Please don't invite on talk pages.

The content of this initial email is unimportant; we only want to know you support our general goal of creating a draft Charter for presentation to the Convention at large. This is not a party created to advance a particular POV.

We ask that new caucus members register on ''this'' wiki. We don't demand that you [[meatball:UseRealNames]], but please give us a "face" we can relate to, as a person.

Those who stumble over these Caucus pages by some other means are asked to send an email to a Caucus member if they wish to participate, and be registered on this wiki with some handle. If a number of individuals insist on participating without passing these simple qualifications, or just come to wreak havoc or amuse themselves, we will simply move the Caucus to another location.

Caucus members are urged to seek out like-minded Wikipedians to join. Consider carefully who you invite, because the temper of this Caucus may well determine the content of the Wikipedian Community Charter as finally adopted by the membership at large, and the future direction of the project for many years to come. '''Thank You!''' [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 16:02, 14 Apr 2005 (CDT) (revised 09:03, 29 May 2005 (CDT))

'''I must emphasize''' that this caucus has ''no power'' to act; it is merely a discussion group. Membership in the group implies ''nothing''; it is especially '''not''' an endorsement of any action.

''If'', at some future time, some caucus members desire to form a faction or party to advance some plan of action, perhaps they may do so -- but no member of the caucus must become a member of the faction or party.

Joining this caucus means exactly one thing: You are here, to speak, listen, or both. We ask you to register on this wiki and list your handle ''only'' so we can speak honestly -- as it were, face to face. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 17:51, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)

== Welcome ==

Here is suggested text for emailed replies to members who email '''you''' with interest in the Caucus or foundation issues in general. ''Please don't'' post this on Wikipedia anywhere, or email it to anyone who has not emailed you ''first''.

Because it is designed to be sent by email, it is entirely in '''plain text''' -- no good to wikify it! But ''do'' replace the placeholders for sender and recipient. {g}

----

WIKIPEDIAN,

Congratulations! You have joined the Wikipedian Community Charter Caucus. Please go to:

http://meta.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Charter/Caucus

Remember to register on *this* wiki, too. Right now, we are doing only one thing: building the caucus membership. Later, we will examine Charter drafts and discuss how to merge them into a single final draft for presentation to the general membership.

Thank You! for your participation.

CAUCUSMEMBER

----

== What is a caucus? ==

[[What is a caucus|More background on this subject.]] [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 15:42, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Charter/Main

2005-05-29T13:54:56Z

Xiong: /* Directory */ terms of membership (or lack thereof)

{{:Charter/Nav}}

This charter pertains mainly to [[Wikipedia]], and to any project aiming to succeed it as the default [[GFDL corpus access provider]]. It is hosted here instead of Meta Wikipedia, which is too closely linked to Wikipedia and [[Wikimedia]], on account of [[Anarchopedia:Itself]]'s long-standing interest in [[GFDL corpus]] governance issues.

== Directory ==

Please link all Charter Caucus pages ''here''. For simplicity, please create any '''new''' pages with the pseudo-namespace "Charter/". Thank you.

* [[Charter/Main]] -- this page; a hub only for all other pages

* [[Charter/Caucus]] -- information about the Caucus itself, including terms of membership (or lack thereof)

* [[Charter/Members]] -- directory of Charter Caucus members ''Add your handle here.''

* [[Charter/Preamble]] -- why we must have a Charter

* [[Charter/Terms]] -- definitions of terms, external links, etc.

* [[Charter/Drafts]] -- directory of draft Charters ''Create a new page for each draft and link it here.''

* [[Charter/Nav]] -- navigation template ''[[Talk:Charter/Nav|Put this]] at the top of every page''

* [[Charter/General]] -- general caucus discussion area. '''Talk here.'''

* [[Charter/Sources]] -- source material of all kinds

== Milestones ==

* 2005 Apr 14 -- Caucus formed.

User:Xiong

2005-05-17T07:34:38Z

Xiong:

{{:Charter/Nav}}
Yes, I'm the same Xiong as on Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me by email at '''xiong@mochamail.com''' -- click the Chinese character in my sig.

Invite other responsible Wikipedians to join the '''Charter Caucus''', but ''please do not link to these pages on any Wikipedia page.'' That is the same thing as '''ending''' the caucus and putting the discussion back into the general community.

We ''will do this thing'', but not ''quite'' yet.

The '''Main Page''' and starting point for the entire '''Charter''' effort is:

: [[Charter/Main]].

The central page for discussion of caucus itself is:

: [[Charter/Caucus]].

See you there! [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 15:25, 14 Apr 2005 (CDT)

User:Xiong

2005-05-17T07:34:05Z

Xiong:

{{:Charter/Nav}}
Yes, I'm the same [[:en:User:Xiong]] as on Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me by email at '''xiong@mochamail.com''' -- click the Chinese character in my sig.

Invite other responsible Wikipedians to join the '''Charter Caucus''', but ''please do not link to these pages on any Wikipedia page.'' That is the same thing as '''ending''' the caucus and putting the discussion back into the general community.

We ''will do this thing'', but not ''quite'' yet.

The '''Main Page''' and starting point for the entire '''Charter''' effort is:

: [[Charter/Main]].

The central page for discussion of caucus itself is:

: [[Charter/Caucus]].

See you there! [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 15:25, 14 Apr 2005 (CDT)

User:Xiong

2005-05-17T07:33:43Z

Xiong:

{{:Charter/Nav}}
Yes, I'm the same [[:en:Xiong]] as on Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me by email at '''xiong@mochamail.com''' -- click the Chinese character in my sig.

Invite other responsible Wikipedians to join the '''Charter Caucus''', but ''please do not link to these pages on any Wikipedia page.'' That is the same thing as '''ending''' the caucus and putting the discussion back into the general community.

We ''will do this thing'', but not ''quite'' yet.

The '''Main Page''' and starting point for the entire '''Charter''' effort is:

: [[Charter/Main]].

The central page for discussion of caucus itself is:

: [[Charter/Caucus]].

See you there! [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 15:25, 14 Apr 2005 (CDT)

User talk:Troll Bridge on the River Kwai

2005-05-17T05:19:34Z

Xiong: Charter Caucus

Hi, I've been <s>stalking</s> checking out your edits. Got a few different comments for ya.

First off, thank you for the respect you show to reference my text. I don't claim any special authority to make these coinages; they are just observations from the porch, so to speak.

That said, I think you and I are going down the wrong road here. I don't know the rules on Anarchopedia -- not sure if there '''are''' any rules -- but it's probably bad form for me to sign comments or whatever in article mainspace. I got off track when you quoted my text from my Wikipedia Talk page -- I claim all responsibility. Unless you see a reason to do otherwise, I'd rather delete all "sigs" from mainspace. I ''cop'' to my edits, but don't need to take credit for them.

Another thing that threw me off track is that our little Charter Caucus project pretty much ignores all such rules; by definition, all its subpages are pretty much discussion pages, and I encourage people to sign their edits.

::You might want to check [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ThreadMode en: c2: ThreadMode]. I don't see any problem with signing on "article pages", provided that anyone is free to [[refactor]] the information so as to maximize its usefulness to the reader - the page history being enough to establish attribution. If you have a problem with that, by all means write in the talk namespace instead. This is just a standard convention, of course.

Which brings us to your involvement in the Caucus. Naturally, we welcome all members with an interest, and as you're already a logged-in member, nothing to say on that score. But we'd appreciate it if you put your handle on [[Charter/Members]] -- if for some reason the word "members" makes you queasy, there's also a Guest list.

::Sorry, but I really have to disagree here. For the sake of [[Trolls|the most credible critics of online groupthink]], we will have to stay out of any membership or "community".

Interesting stuff on ethics. We can use more stuff like that.

''Thank You!'' for your participation. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 01:08, 25 Apr 2005 (CDT)

::Make a choice. You can insist that every contributor here must become a member of some sort of social group or be ignored. If you do that, we will respect your privacy - I will make no further contribution here.

::If you want our help, then you will have to give due process and consideration to the perspectives of anon editors and these who choose not to sign up as "caucus members" - this is nothing more than a simple defense against mindless "[http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Wikipedianism Wikipedianism]".

::* If you don't care whether articles have sigs, I don't either. Fine by me either way.

::* Who's "we"? Is that the royal we? Or do you speak for others as well?

::* I ''don't'' have to make a choice; ''I'm not a gatekeeper''. I took it upon myself to squat here in the corner, put out a few chairs, invite some Wikipedians in, drag some texts from one place or another that might be relevant. If the caucus needs rules, much less someone to enforce them, then our effort is '''doomed.''' It just looks like common sense to have a central list of contributors to the caucus -- no matter what you choose for a label. If you can think of a way to express that in a totally nonpolitical fashion, please let me know.

::: Would you be offended if I put another heading on the Members page and added you to it? Do you have any suggestion for the heading title? "Contributors"? "Visitors"? "Editors"? "Nonmember Users"? "Users who have edited caucus pages"? Let me know what works for you. It's not as though you can edit in secret -- page history tells all.

::: I don't think a lot is at stake here with listing caucus members, believe me. If you do, then you automatically win, as far as I'm concerned.

:::FWIW, I have very little stake in current Wikipedian culture, which I think has gone down the shitter -- if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have called an off-project caucus. I have no interest at all in imposing cookie-cutter, rubber-stamp conformity on anyone, or excluding points of view from this caucus. This is not a faction or coalition, let alone a party -- merely a room full of whoever walks in, each representing himself -- vocally, I would hope. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 05:38, 30 Apr 2005 (CDT)

== Charter Caucus ==

This caucus is semi-active. We've been laying the groundwork, and I appreciate your recent contribs. Eventually -- in good wikitime, I guess -- it will be time for a full-scale barnraising, mass solicitation of members, etc.

I don't actually have any ''experience'' doing this; as in all things, I'm a sort of bright fool. It's clear to me this caucus is needed, but I don't pretend to know where the bus is going, and I'm certainly not the driver.

Your every suggestion is welcome. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 00:19, 17 May 2005 (CDT)

Charter/Sources/Cassandra

2005-05-04T06:37:00Z

Xiong: add nav

{{:Charter/Nav}}

''[[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.

What Anarchy Logo Is Not

2005-05-04T06:35:11Z

Xiong: not a logo

<center>
[[Image:notlogo.png]]
</center>

While I have no bone to pick whatever with the venerable black star, I thought to make this small gift to the community of Anarchopedia in recognition of their kind tolerance.

This is ''not'' a logo of any kind; it is the anti-logo -- non-standard, ill-formed, hastily drawn. Ideally, it should not be preserved as a PNG image on Anarchopedia, Itself -- or anywhere else. Look on it for a minute or a week, then '''burn''' it. Perhaps if the mood strikes you later, you might spray it on the side of a bus or congresscritter.

The circle is not closed because it does not exclude. The letter leans to the left but does not point there. The ends of the lines violate the circle because they respect no boundaries. In particular, it bears no kinship to the discredited "Total Nuclear Disarmament" / "Mercedes-Benz" logo hijacked by the same team that brought you mall storefront tie-dye teeshirts.

This is not a logo; and if you see something that looks something like it, that has been nicely cleaned up or carefully grunged up, you will know the Machine has been there, and you will pass it by; if you see it often, it will be time to scrawl a new graffito and forget this one ever meant anything.

Anarchopedia:Upload log

2005-05-04T06:18:02Z

Xiong: uploaded "notlogo.png": Created by uploader. I deny that any copyright applies to this work.

Below is a list of the most recent file uploads.
All times shown are server time (UTC).
<ul><li>06:18, 4 May 2005 [[User:Xiong|Xiong]] uploaded "[[:Image:notlogo.png|notlogo.png]]" (Created by uploader. I deny that any copyright applies to this work. )</li>
<li>05:35, 21 Apr 2005 [[User:Xiong|Xiong]] uploaded "[[:Image:query-road.png|query-road.png]]" (i did it)</li>
<li>18:11, 8 Feb 2005 [[User:Christiaan|Christiaan]] uploaded "[[:Image:Wiki.png|Wiki.png]]" (opps that didn't work, have to change http://meta.anarchopedia.org/stylesheets/images/wiki.png manually I guess)</li>
<li>18:04, 8 Feb 2005 [[User:Christiaan|Christiaan]] uploaded "[[:Image:Wiki.png|Wiki.png]]" (Uploading new logo)</li>
<li>16:59, 5 Feb 2005 [[User:Christiaan|Christiaan]] uploaded "[[:Image:anarchopedia_small_meta.png|anarchopedia_small_meta.png]]" (Sketch idea for alternative meta logo)</li>
<li>06:43, 3 Feb 2005 [[User:lyberty|lyberty]] uploaded "[[:Image:metaLogo.png|metaLogo.png]]"</li>
<li>21:59, 24 Jan 2005 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Logo.png|Logo.png]]" (minor fix)</li>
<li>11:30, 23 Jan 2005 [[User:Christiaan|Christiaan]] uploaded "[[:Image:logo_proposal_with_text.png|logo_proposal_with_text.png]]" (Proposed (large version) logo for Anarchopedia)</li>
<li>21:52, 21 Jan 2005 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Logo.png|Logo.png]]" (Proposed logo for Anarchopedia)</li>
<li>03:23, 6 Dec 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Blkred_flag.png|Blkred_flag.png]]"</li>
<li>03:21, 6 Dec 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Wiki.png|Wiki.png]]"</li>
<li>03:20, 6 Dec 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:wiki.png|wiki.png]]"</li>
<li>03:17, 6 Dec 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Sabcat2.gif|Sabcat2.gif]]"</li>
<li>03:17, 6 Dec 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Anarchist_black_cross_logo.gif|Anarchist_black_cross_logo.gif]]"</li>
<li>20:38, 5 Dec 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:blkred_flag.png|blkred_flag.png]]"</li>
<li>20:08, 5 Dec 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Anarchy_symbol_neat.png|Anarchy_symbol_neat.png]]"</li>
<li>20:03, 5 Dec 2004 [[User:Guanabot|Guanabot]] uploaded "[[:Image:humboldt.jpg|humboldt.jpg]]" (test)</li>
<li>12:03, 17 Nov 2004 [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] uploaded "[[:Image:Chelives.jpg|Chelives.jpg]]" (Che-Lives logo)</li>
<li>21:40, 29 Oct 2004 [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] uploaded "[[:Image:cymisf.jpg|cymisf.jpg]]" (Che y Marijuana's user image)</li>
<li>23:08, 23 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:George_W._Bush.jpg|George_W._Bush.jpg]]" (crop to remove caption and black border)</li>
<li>18:32, 23 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:George_W._Bush.jpg|George_W._Bush.jpg]]" (White House photo by Eric Draper)</li>
<li>06:55, 17 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Wikiquote.png|Wikiquote.png]]" (testing uploads)</li>
<li>22:16, 11 Oct 2004 68.102.13.123 uploaded "[[:Image:AFLAC_duck.png|AFLAC_duck.png]]" (testing image deletion)</li>
<li>19:05, 10 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:bullet.png|bullet.png]]"</li>
<li>19:03, 10 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Wiki-IE.png|Wiki-IE.png]]"</li>
<li>18:42, 10 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:headbg.jpg|headbg.jpg]]" ({{system images}})</li>
<li>18:40, 10 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:user-IE.png|user-IE.png]]" ({{system images}})</li>
<li>18:37, 10 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Wiki-IE.png|Wiki-IE.png]]" ({{system images}})</li>
<li>18:26, 10 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:bullet.png|bullet.png]]"</li>
<li>17:35, 10 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:user.png|user.png]]"</li>
<li>22:36, 9 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:SpecialImport.php.ogg|SpecialImport.php.ogg]]" (MediaWiki's Special:Import from 1.4)</li>
<li>03:17, 9 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Gnu-fdl.png|Gnu-fdl.png]]"</li>
<li>00:22, 6 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Gnu-fdl.png|Gnu-fdl.png]]"</li>
<li>23:59, 5 Oct 2004 [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] uploaded "[[:Image:Wiki.png|Wiki.png]]" (fixed version of the logo)</li>
<li>15:44, 1 Oct 2004 [[User:Millosh|Millosh]] uploaded "[[:Image:Sabot.gif|Sabot.gif]]"</li>
<li>15:40, 1 Oct 2004 [[User:Millosh|Millosh]] uploaded "[[:Image:Anarchist_black_cross_logo.gif|Anarchist_black_cross_logo.gif]]"</li>
<li>15:38, 1 Oct 2004 [[User:Millosh|Millosh]] uploaded "[[:Image:Sabcat2.gif|Sabcat2.gif]]"</li>
<li>15:31, 1 Oct 2004 [[User:Millosh|Millosh]] uploaded "[[:Image:Anarchy_symbol_neat.png|Anarchy_symbol_neat.png]]"</li>
<li>15:14, 1 Oct 2004 [[User:Millosh|Millosh]] uploaded "[[:Image:MagrittePipe.jpg|MagrittePipe.jpg]]"</li>
<li>13:12, 1 Oct 2004 [[User:Millosh|Millosh]] uploaded "[[:Image:Blkred_flag.png|Blkred_flag.png]]"</li>

</ul>

User talk:Charles P.

2005-04-30T10:59:00Z

Xiong: wow

Welcome to the charter caucus! And ''thank you'' for your participation. Jump in anywhere; this is a small group and the atmosphere not one-tenth as oppresive as it is in Wikipedia Talkspace. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 05:51, 30 Apr 2005 (CDT)

'''Wow!''' I would like you to copy all [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mirv/Cassandra that] into a fresh subpage under [[Charter/Sources]]/. You are on the right road. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 05:59, 30 Apr 2005 (CDT)

User talk:Charles P.

2005-04-30T10:51:11Z

Xiong: welcome!

Charter/General

2005-04-30T10:48:11Z

Xiong: /* Anarchopedia */ please no, not meta

{{:Charter/Nav}}

== Wiki vs mailing list ==

::Why not just post to the wikipedia-l or foundation-l mailing list with your proposals? (68.51.240.131 / 21:48, 14 Apr 2005)

''Please'' login and sign with tildes; you wouldn't be here if you weren't an experienced Wikipedian, so I don't think I need to tell you ''why''. In a face caucus, people do not normally identify themselves; they just walk up and join in, or stand around with their hands in their pockets waiting to hear something interesting. But in wikispace, unless you provide a handle, you not only have no name -- you have no face. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 15:53, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)

At first, I ''did'' create a mailing list for caucus; but that model is insufficiently open. '''A mailing list has an owner''', with extraordinary power over the list. Also, each text is passed once only to all members, then forgotten -- texts cannot be ''edited''.

I'm not "the boss" here; think of me as the guy who walked into the room first, turned on the lights, and set out the chairs. '''I have no control over the discussion.'''

The wiki model is not only far superior ''in general'' but I think it is clearly superior for the purpose of discussing Wikipedia-related issues. Using a wiki is like having a whiteboard in the room. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 16:14, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)

== Agenda ==

I'm not sure what you mean by ''my proposals''. I have ideas, true, but this caucus is not here to push them. I ''have'' made several commonsense assertions; question them if you like:

1. The Wikipedian Community is in a state of crisis.

2. The community at large has reacted to this crisis with multiple calls for a general Convention. Given the technical nature of wikispace, the community is thus ''already'' in convention.

3. Draft charters are visible on many pages of Wikipediaspace.

4. The size of the general membership is so great that political models appropriate to large groups apply.

5. Political business is not transacted on the open floor of a convention. Viable proposals ''only'' come out of caucus -- or are railroaded through by a single powerful faction.

By the way, ''this'' is not the only caucus! Other Wikipedians are caucusing ''right now.'' I don't know where, and I don't know who -- but I guarantee there are many rooms in cyberspace in which the topic of a Charter or Constitution for the Wikipedian Community is in the air.

Much worse, '''established factions''' are planning to advance their positions without listening to ''any opposition''. I would like to see something of strength arise to oppose the One-Thing People. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 16:14, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Unless the established factions are the developers or the Wikimedia Board themselves (that is, the people who really ''can'' pull the strings with no effective opposition), there's nothing to worry about. And nobody's ''obliged'' to listen to anyone else. I could draft a kooky proposal right now and "advance" it. I could even put it up for a vote. Of course, it would be shot down and buried in the blink of an eye, but that's another matter.

Statements like these smack of belief in a cabal, or at least in a collection of respected, well-meaning, misguided individuals suffering from [[Wikipedia:en:groupthink|groupthink]]. I don't doubt those exist, but I question the need to oppose them with "something of strength" in the form of yet another collection of individuals working in relative isolation from the community. Mind you, I'm not questioning that such a group could be more productive than everyone and their mother pouring over a proposal on Wikipedia—but let's keep in mind that the goal is not to oppose the shadowy bands of One-Thing promoters, whatever else our goal might be. Otherwise allegations of isolating yourself to avoid opposition are too easy to mount for it not to look hypocritical—and of course ''we'' would be "open" and working to "consensus" while the others would not...

Call me Inertia—I'm in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp. I'm also in the "Wikipedia is not an experiment in politics" camp, so if you're getting a little too enthusiastic about politics, be prepared to get some annoying "how is this building an encyclopedia" remarks. In that sense, I think highly of Kim's [[wikipedia:en:Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset|simplified ruleset]] (I prefer linking to the original)—not as a charter, but simply as a rewording and re-highlighting of things that are already there. That's how wikis operate: first it's simple, then confusion and cruft proliferate, then this is coalesced into something simpler (going by ''de facto'' rather than ''de iure''), then the whole thing starts over again. A charter sounds like something that would remain immutable, or mostly immutable. Other than "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", "NPOV" and "factual accuracy", I can't imagine what else should be.

Please note that I'm not attacking you; I'm not even particularly attacking your statements. I'm not going to stand at the sidelines and boo everything because I don't see the point; that's obstruction of the most annoying kind. If you can't convince me a charter is necessary and I can't convince you it's not necessary, we'll politely part ways.

Wikipedia is the largest wiki ever. It's arguably also the most successful, if we take "success" at "meeting your goals". Nobody's arguing that Wikipedia is perfect, least of all Wikipedians. But if you're gonna cry wolf, I wanna see some fur and flashing teeth before I grab my torch and pitchfork. I've never had any problems that couldn't be fixed by taking a step back, taking a deep breath and coming at it from another angle. So convince me that other people do, and that their problems are a result of Wikipedia's inadequacies rather than their own. (Wow, confrontational much?) [[User:JRM|JRM]] 18:11, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)

'''Woo.''' Well, I asked for debate. I appreciate your statement that you will remain here only as long as you hope to see something of value emerge, or perhaps only until you are convinced the possibility is unlikely. As you point out, anything thrown onto the open floor will be immediately torn to shreds by those who lack common interest, and I don't encourage participation by those who don't want it.

The "established factions" are not Jimmy Wales and the Board; they are the ''current power structure''. Established factions are, for instance:

* Deletionists
* Inclusionists
* China-is-PRC Chinese
* Taiwan-is-ROC Chinese
* Flag all material that may unsuitable for small children -ists
* Confrontationally color every possible article with nudity -ists (in re see "Titanic")
* Copyright upholders
* Technicians
* Polish steam locomotive engineer family tree enthusiasts
* Pokemonists

Each one of these groups seeks to redefine basic documents and processes to bias them towards their own agendas. There is constant forum-shopping.

The most fanatic members of these factions are One-Thing People. They turn every conversation around to their favorite hobbyhorse, and are utterly unproductive when it comes to building consensus.

I ''do'' hope that this caucus can stand as a body of respected, well-meaning, individuals guided by a sense of common purpose and with respect of the diversity of the Wikipedian Community. To the extent that we attempt to reach broad and inclusive consensus, and establish principles that apply generally, we are in direct opposition to all One-Thing People.

We should act ''swiftly'' to boot out any member of this caucus who comes to push a narrow agenda, to railroad it in, to bully the rest of us. No formal process is needed; we'll just give the One-Thinger the axe -- if necessary, we'll pack up and move elsewhere -- digital technology makes that a sight easier than moving to another room when a drunken conventioneer wanders in and pukes on the whiteboard.

However, I at least intend that this caucus be truly open. We have in place a very low bar for membership; "identify yourself" and, I suppose, "don't be a complete asshole". I am personally opposed to quite a few people I have invited to share this caucus. I encourage all members to invite not merely their friends, but their enemies. All I hope for is that we will all use common sense, and invite people who ''might'' reasonably be expected to contribute something, and not just walk around muttering, '''Crap! Crap! Crap! Crap!''' -- or hog the floor with incessant demands to have their pet projects elevated to the status of foundation issues.

'''''I am not a gatekeeper.'''''

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in politics" was written by somebody terribly naÃ¯ve in politics. There is no such thing as a quarter of a million people all in one place, without politics. WP has been an experiment in politics ever since its active membership passed the 1000 mark or so.

Small communities have no politics; they have small group dynamics. They do not need rules or procedures. They work more or less together, and those who oppose the group are swiftly isolated. There may be a leader, but seldom more than one. As soon as there are more than 3 or 4 leaders, it becomes impossible to hope they will all agree -- and that begins the process of politics.

WP is not only an experiment in politics; it is an experiment in anarchy, with a little despotism mixed in. Near as I can tell, the despotism has been slight and benevolent -- I'm not complaining. In large part, the community has been left to develop its own rules and power structure, with little check or brake -- and nothing in the way of one, single, clear foundation document that all know, all accept, and which actually guides all actions.

Everywhere I go, I see blatant violations of each principle I have seen mentioned as a foundation principle. The fanatics rule in the streets. I believe Jimmy Wales has left the building -- or, more likely, that he feels it is wrong to replace chaos with an iron fist.

''I agree''. This is ''our'' community, not Jimbo's. By the very starting terms of the project, it is not owned by anybody, including the Wikimedia Foundation. For one, the project content is a movable feast; any group may fork it, including the entire community of editors. For another, no one man or small group can pretend to ownership of a community of human beings.

'''This is not a network of machines. It is a community of people.'''

I am ''not'' a forkist; I don't believe ''any'' action the community at large is able to agree upon will be opposed by the existing power structure. I only point out that the ''potential'' and ''legitimacy'' of fork is what empowers us to remain where we are and assert our right to self-government. ''And that means politics.''

Personally, I suspect Jimbo is sitting on his throne, looking down, ''waiting'' for us to do this very thing.

''..."if it ain't broke, don't fix it"'' -- I couldn't agree more. I have a home, a family, clients, and 4 or 5 personal projects to keep me busy. I begrudge the time I spend contributing ''substance'' to WP; and I ''detest'' the time I spend fending off fanatics, trolls, and orcs. I would turn my back on this project in a heartbeat, except that I feel it is perhaps the 3rd most important adventure of mankind -- the preservation of factual knowledge in a form accessible to all. I have done battle already in the 2nd most important, and the 1st is blocked to me. I devote my attention to WP to the exclusion of most pressing demands and to the detriment of my health. If there was ''any way'' I could accept the status quo, I would. I would ''never'' assume the additional burden of this caucus unless I believed it ''absolutely necessary''.

You, JRM, are an Old Head; you've been on board a long time. You've seen the community weather many a storm, and rightly you feel it will weather another. And you are ''right'' -- and ''this'' is part of that process.

WP is literally unprecedented. It is now #62 in Alexa's ranking of most popular websites. That beats out a lot of very large and important sites. In contrast, Alta Vista is down at #70; the ''New York Times'' is at #54. Nor do I expect WP to fall in rank.

WP now has nearly a quarter million registered members. Most of them are inactive, of course, but how many do you suppose are active? 10,000? At least. It depends how you define "active". But ''I'' count as ''active members'' of the community the thousands of users who just come to read, to learn and move on, who never make an edit, much less register. They, too, are members of our community -- and it could be argued, the most important!

There has ''never'' been a wiki as large as WP; not even close. The nearest standard for comparison, to my way of thinking, is Slashdot -- I cannot even find them on Alexa, but they must be there Somewhere. Slashdot has degenerated into pure gamesmanship -- I no longer look to it for anything.

I don't know what it will take to make you believe we are in a state of crisis. I have been searching for a source to one specific metric -- the ratio of mainspace edits to edits in all other namespaces, graphed over time. Intuitively, I'm sure the ratio has been falling; but I cannot prove it, because I don't know how to get the data, or even who might be prevailed upon for it.

To me, the crisis is clear and obvious. We have outgrown the old family model -- outgrown it twice over. We are infested with tinpot dictators, who are knocked off their balsawood thrones as soon as they climb on -- but if nothing is done by men of good will, something will be done by those of evil intent.

Politics is a reality; some form of social structure ''will'' arise. No love of pure anarchy or status quo can stop this inevitable process. '''We must act together to ensure the minimum order necessary to preserve our freedoms''' -- many of which are now trodden into the mud.

* ''When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.'' -- Edmund Burke, "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontent"

[[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 19:56, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)

== Instruction creep ==

If I am guided by one thought in all of this, it is that instruction creep, resort to authority, and endless policy revision is corrupting the fabric of our society. Editing WP seems to me like being locked in a phone booth with a thousand angry rabbis.

The primary purpose of many foundation documents, such as the United States of America's Bill of Rights, is to ''prevent'' the passage of some kinds of laws and regulations. Some agendas are flatly blocked from consideration.

I should dearly like a Charter that asserts its primacy -- its absolute command of all other rules and policies -- inhibits instruction creep, and forbids scope creep.

I wish to see that Charter -- whatever it may be -- endorsed by such an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians that it will not be possible to overturn it or elevate some other agenda to a superior position.

And this can only be done if that Charter is worked out very carefully, by a number of Wikipedians, who edit it mercilessly, but with the common goal of developing something we can ''all'' agree upon. I do not doubt that it will be a rather short document. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 18:25, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Moved "Conflict Points" to [[Charter/Drafts/Conflict Points]] [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 07:15, 20 Apr 2005 (CDT)

==Anarchopedia==
These "Charter" pages look like they belong on Meta Wikipedia, not Meta Anarchopedia. I can see these problems potentially arising here eventually, but it appears that this pertains more to Wikipedia than Anarchopedia. [[User:Guanaco|Guanaco]] 19:41, 27 Apr 2005 (CDT)

: Our presence here is on sufferance. I am frankly in love with the idea of conducting a political process in a corner of the home of anarchists. If the "residents" are annoyed, we'll just have to move. I only hope for sufficient notice to pack up our content for removal.

: I do ''not'' want to host caucus on Meta Wikipedia. That wiki is too closely linked to Wikipedia itself. I believe we must, in some way, stand outside the community in order to work on a document that will serve as its foundation.

: I appreciate our gracious hosts and hope we may continue to be permitted to potter about in our little corner. ''Thank You!'' [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 05:48, 30 Apr 2005 (CDT)

User talk:Troll Bridge on the River Kwai

2005-04-30T10:38:09Z

Xiong: be how you feel

Talk:Charter/Drafts/Trifecta

2005-04-30T10:13:11Z

Xiong: Not assertive

== Not assertive ==

This draft does not assert itself as a foundation document. It references 16 other documents. (!) [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 05:13, 30 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Charter/Drafts/Trifecta

2005-04-30T10:12:07Z

Xiong:

{{:Charter/Nav}}

''this material excerpted from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicy_trifecta Wikipedia:Policy trifecta] [[2005]] [[April 30]]''

==Text==

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia created by a community using a wiki. Those three basic characteristics suggest three basic guiding principles for editors, of which all others are corollaries:

* as an encyclopedia: '''[[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]]''' - our basic editorial policy
** Corollaries: Conventions on [[WP:MOS|style]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], [[WP:CITE|citation]], [[WP:DP|deletion]], [[WP:NOR|original research]], etc.

* as a community: '''[[m:Don't be a dick|Don't be a dick]]''' - our basic social policy
** Corollaries: [[WP:COOL|Keep your cool]], [[WP:FAITH|assume good faith]], [[WP:NPA|avoid personal attacks]].
** Strongly implied are the [[WP:1RR|one revert rule]] and [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] [[m:Polls_are_evil|as opposed to voting]]

* as a wiki: '''[[WP:IAR|Ignore all rules]]''' - the suggested personal policy
** Corollaries: [[WP:BOLD|Be bold]], avoid [[m:instruction creep|instruction creep]]

Charter/Drafts

2005-04-30T10:09:45Z

Xiong: add trifecta

Charter/Sources/Sanger

2005-04-25T07:02:16Z

Xiong: add nav

{{:Charter/Nav}}

Larry Sanger has had a lot to say about Wikipedia over the years. These are a few excerpts. In some cases, emphasis has been added, links have been broken, and the text otherwise mangled.

== Slashdot ==

=== Part 1 ===

[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir]

...Some questions have been raised about the origin of Wikipedia policies. The tale is interesting and instructive, and one of the main themes of this memoir. We began with no (or few) policies in particular and said that the community would determine--through a sort of vague consensus, based on its experience working together--what the policies would be. The very first entry on a "rules to consider" page was the '''"Ignore All Rules"''' rule (to wit: ''"If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business"''). This is a "rule" that, current Wikipedians might be surprised to learn, I personally proposed. The reason was that I thought we needed experience with how wikis should work, and even more importantly at that point we needed participants more than we needed rules. As the project grew and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular "rule" and then rejected it altogether. As one participant later commented, "this rule is the essence of Wikipedia." That was certainly never my view; I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc. In a similar spirit, I proposed that contributors '''be bold''' in updating pages (the current version is much expanded, as it should be)....

...I could only attempt to '''shame any troublemakers''' into compliance; without recourse to any genuine punitive action, that was the most I could do. In about the first eight months of the project, this was usually sufficient for me to do my job. After that, however, my job got increasingly difficult, as I will explain.

So Wikipedia began as a good-natured anarchy, a sort of Rousseauian state of digital nature. I always took Wikipedia's anarchy to be provisional and purely for purposes of determining what the best rules, and the nature of its authority, should be. What I, and other Wikipedians, failed to realize is that our '''initial anarchy''' would be taken by the next wave of contributors as the very '''essence of the project'''--how Wikipedia was "meant" to be...

...Wikipedia became what it is today because, having been seeded with great people with a fairly clear idea of what they wanted to achieve, we proceeded to make a series of free decisions that determined the policy of the project and culture of its supporting community. Wikipedia's system is neither the only way to run a wiki, nor the only way to run an open content encyclopedia. Its particular conjunction of policies is in no way natural, "organic," or necessary. It is instead artificial, a result of a series of free choices, and we could have chosen differently in many cases; and choosing differently on some issues might have led to a project better than the one that exists today.

Though it began as an anarchy, there were quite a few policies that were settled upon, more or less, within the first six months or so. This required some struggle, especially on my part, particularly because, since the project was a wiki, some participants thought that there should be no rules at all. (Enforceable rules were regarded as "anti-wiki," which was supposed to be a bad thing.) But it was made clear from the beginning that we intended Wikipedia to be an '''encyclopedia''', and so we were able to plug for at least those rules that would help define and sustain the project as an encyclopedia.

For instance, throughout the early months, people added various content that seemed less than encyclopedic in various ways.... As people found new ways not to write encyclopedia articles, I started '''"What Wikipedia is not"'''...

Many of our first controversies were over these restrictions. At the time, I had enough influence within the community to get these policies generally accepted. And if we had not decided on these restrictions, Wikipedia might well have ended up, like many wikis, as nothing in particular. But since we insisted that it was an encyclopedia, even though it was just a blank wiki and a group of people to begin with, it became an encyclopedia. There is something very profound about that. I also like to think that we helped to show the world the potential that wikis have.

Another policy that was instituted early on was the '''nonbias or neutrality policy'''. This was borrowed from the Nupedia project and made a Rule to Consider--in a very early version, the policy was put this way:

: '''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact. (3) is strongly preferred.

Jimmy then started a specialized policy page he called "Neutral Point of View".... I confess I don't much like this name as a name for the policy, because it implies that to write neutrally, or without bias, is actually to express a point of view, and, as the definite article is used, a single point of view at that. "Neutrality", "neutral", and "neutrally" are better to use for the noun, adjective, and adverb. But the acronym "NPOV" came to be used for all three, by Wikipedians wanting to seem hip, and then the unfortunate "POV" came to be used when the perfectly good English word "biased" would do.

In addition to these, I recall suggesting a number of other rules...I think these policies were just a matter of common sense for anyone who understood what a good encyclopedia should be like. And of course I was not the only person proposing conventions. Moreover, actual project policy, or community habits, succeeded in being established only by being followed and supported by a majority of participants. It was then, we said, that there was a '''"rough consensus"''' in favor of the policy. And consensus, we said, is required for a policy actually to be considered project policy. For our purposes, a "consensus" appeared to consist of (1) widespread common practice, (2) many vocal defenders, and (3) virtually no detractors.

But that way of settling upon policy proposals--viz., by alleged consensus--'''did not scale''', in my opinion. After about nine months or so, there were so many contributors, and especially brand new contributors, that nothing like a consensus could be reached, for the simple reason that condition (3) above was never achievable: there would after that always be somebody who insisted on expressing disagreement. There was, then, a non-scaling policy adoption procedure, and a crying need to continue to adopt sensible policies. This led to some pretty serious problems in the community...

=== Part 2 ===

[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95 The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia, Part II]

This is a good place to explain why Wikipedia actually got started and why it worked (and still does work, at least as well as it does). The explanation involves a combination of quite a few factors, some borrowed from the open source movement, some borrowed from wiki software and culture, and some more idiosyncratic:

: 1. ''Open content license.'' We promised contributors that their work would always remain free for others to read. This, as is well known, motivates people to work for the good of the world--and for the many people who would like to teach the whole world, that's a pretty strong motivation.

: 2. ''Focus on the encyclopedia.'' We said that we were creating an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, etc., and we encouraged people to stick to creating the encyclopedia and not use the project as a debate forum.

: 3. ''Openness.'' Anyone could contribute. Everyone was specifically made to feel welcome. (E.g., we encouraged the habit of writing on new contributors' user pages, "Welcome to Wikipedia!" etc.) There was no sense that someone would be turned away for not being bright enough, or not being a good enough writer, or whatever.

: 4. ''Ease of editing.'' Wikis are pretty easy for most people to figure out. In other collaborative systems (like Nupedia), you have to learn all about the system first. Wikipedia had an almost flat learning curve.

: 5. C''ollaborate radically; don't sign articles.'' Radical collaboration, in which (in principle) anyone can edit any part of anyone else's work, is one of the great innovations of the open source software movement. On Wikipedia, radical collaboration made it possible for work to move forward on all fronts at the same time, to avoid the big bottleneck that is the individual author, and to burnish articles on popular topics to a fine luster.

: 6. ''Offer unedited, unapproved content for further development.'' This is required if one wishes to collaborate radically. We encouraged putting up their unfinished drafts--as long as they were at least roughly correct--with the idea that they can only improve if there are others collaborating. This is a classic principle of open source software. It helped get Wikipedia started and helped keep it moving. This is why so many original drafts of Wikipedia articles were basically garbage (no offense to anyone--some of my own drafts were sometimes garbage), and also why it is surprising to the uninitiated that many articles have turned out very well indeed.

: 7. ''Neutrality.'' A firm neutrality policy made it possible for people of widely divergent opinions to work together, without constantly fighting. It's a way to keep the peace.

: 8. ''Start with a core of good people.'' I think it was essential that we began the project with a core group of intelligent good writers who understood what an encyclopedia should look like, and who were basically decent human beings.

: 9. ''Enjoy the Google effect.'' We had little to do with this, but had Google not sent us an increasing amount of traffic each time they spidered the growing website, we would not have grown nearly as fast as we did. (See below.)

That's pretty much it. The focus on the encyclopedia provided the task and the open content license provided a natural motivation: people work hard if they believe they are teaching the world stuff. Openness and ease of editing made it easy for new people to join in and get to work. Collaboration helped move work forward quickly and efficiently, and posting unedited drafts made collaboration possible. The fact that we started with a core of good people from Nupedia meant that the project could develop a functional, cooperative community. Neutrality made it easy for people to work together with relatively little conflict. And the Google effect provided a steady supply of "fresh blood"--who in turn supplied increasing amounts of content.

Probably, all or nearly all other project rules were either optional, or straightforward applications of these principles....

==== A series of controversies ====

So much for the very early history of Wikipedia; the next phase involved rapid growth and some serious internal controversies over policy and authority. If Wikipedia's basic policy was settled upon in the first nine months, its culture was solidified into something closer to its present form in the next nine.

The project continued to grow....

This growth brought difficult challenges, challenges that perhaps I did not sufficiently anticipate and plan for. Some of our earliest contributors were academics and other highly-qualified people, and it seems to me that they were slowly worn down and driven away by having to deal with difficult people on the project.... So there was a growing problem: ''persistent and difficult contributors tend to drive away many better, more valuable contributors....'' There were many more who quietly came and quietly left. Short of removing the problem contributors altogether--which we did only in the very worst cases--there was no easy solution, under the system as we had set it up. And I am sorry to have to admit that those aspects of the system that led to this problem were as much my responsibility as anyone else's. Obviously, '''I would not design the system the same way if given the chance again.'''

As a result, I grew both more protective of the project and increasingly sensitive to abuse of the system. As I tried to exercise what little authority I claimed, as a corrective to such abuse, many newer arrivals on the scene made great sport of challenging my authority. One of the earliest challenges happened in late summer, 2001. [''a discussion of archiving vandalism''] At the time, I thought that this controversy was just as silly as it will sound to most people reading this; I thought that I needed only to "put my foot down" a little harder and, as had happened for the first six months of the project, participants would fall into line. What I did not realize was that this was to be only the first in a long series of controversies, the ultimate upshot of which was to undermine my own moral authority over the project and to make the project ''as safe as possible for the most abusive and contentious contributors''.

Throughout this and other early controversies, much of the debate about project policy was conducted on the wiki itself.... It seemed to me, and many other contributors, that this debate was distracting the community from our main goal: to create an encyclopedia. Consequently I proposed that we '''move the debate''' to another wiki that was to be created specifically for that purpose--what became known as the "meta wiki."...

...In the first years, only the worst trolls were ever expelled from the project. I do not know whether this policy has been changed as a result of the operation of the much-later installed Arbitration Committee.

...On a wiki, contributions exist in perpetuity, as it were, or until they are deleted or radically changed; consequently, anyone new to a discussion sees the first contribution first. So ''whoever starts a new page for discussion also, to a great extent, sets the tone and agenda of the discussion.'' Moreover, nasty, heated exchanges live on forever on a wiki, festering like an open wound, unless deliberately toned down afterwards; if the same exchange takes place on a mailing list, it slips mercifully and quietly into the archives.

At about the same time... I wrote an essay titled, "Is Wikipedia an experiment in anarchy?" This and the discussion that ensued tended to ossify positions with regard to the authority issue: I and a few others agreed that '''Jimmy and I should have special authority within the system''', to settle policy issues that needed settling. Jimmy was relatively quiet about this issue....

By November or December of 2001, Wikipedia was growing so fast ... we knew that large influxes of members could have a tendency to change the nature of the project, and not necessarily for the better.... I proposed what I thought was a humorously-named "Wikipedia Militia" which would manage new (and very welcome) "invasions" by new contributors. By this time, however, there was a small core group of people who were constantly on the watch for anything that smacked the least bit of authoritarianism; consequently, the name, and various aspects of how the proposal was presented, were vigorously debated. Eventually, we switched to "The Wikipedia Welcoming Committee" and finally, the "Volunteer Fire Department"--which eventually, it seems, fell into disuse.

==== The governance challenge ====

... I composed a page originally called "Our Replies to Our Critics" (and now called "Replies to Common Objections")...

: Moreover--and this is something that you might not be able to understand very well if you haven't actually experienced it--there is a fair bit of (mostly friendly) peer pressure, and community standards are constantly being reinforced. The cranks and partisans, etc., are not simply outgunned. They also receive considerable opprobrium if they abuse the system.

This reflects very well the conception I had in September 2001 of Wikipedia's culture; the reply above was as much hopeful and prescriptive as descriptive. But it turned out to be only partly true. As difficult users began to have more of a "run of the place," in late 2001 and 2002, opprobrium was in fact meted out only piecemeal and inconsistently. It seemed that participation in the community was becoming increasingly a struggle over principles, rather than a shared effort toward shared goals. Any attempt to enforce what should have been set policy--neutrality, no original research, and no wholesale deletion without explanation--was frequently if not usually met with resistance. It was difficult to claim the moral high ground in a dispute, because the basic project principles were constantly coming under attack. Consequently, Wikipedia's environment was not cooperative but instead competitive, and the competition often concerned what sort of community Wikipedia should be: radically anarchical and uncontrolled, or instead more singlemindedly devoted to building an encyclopedia. Sadly, few among those who would love to work on Wikipedia could thrive in such a protean environment.

It is one thing to lack any equivalent to "police" and "courts" that can quickly and effectively eliminate abuse; such enforcement systems were rarely entertained in Wikipedia's early years, because according to the wiki ideal, users can effectively police each other. It is another thing altogether to lack a community ethos that is unified in its commitment to its basic ideals, so that the community's champions could claim a moral high ground. So why was there no such unified community ethos and no uncontroversial "moral high ground"? I think it was a simple consequence of the fact that the community was to be largely self-organizing and to set its own policy by consensus. Any loud minority, even a persistent minority of one person, can remove the appearance of consensus. ...I felt compelled by ongoing controversies to request that Jimmy declare that ''certain policies were in fact non-negotiable'', which he did. Unfortunately, this declaration was too little, too late, in my opinion.

By late 2001, I had gained both friends and detractors. I think I had become, within the project, a '''symbol of opposition to anarchism''', of the enforcement of standards, and consequently of the exercise of authority in a radically open project... I came to the view, finally and belatedly, that it would be better to '''"ignore the trolls."''' But as it turns out, this is particularly hard to do on a wiki, because, again, unlike on an e-mail list, trollish contributions do not just disappear into the archives; they sit out in the open, as available as the first day they appeared, and "festering." Attempts to delete or radically edit such contributions were often met by reposting the earlier, problem version: the ability to do that is a necessary feature of collaboration. Persistent trolls could, thus, be a serious problem, particularly if they were able to draw a sympathetic audience. And there was often an audience of sympathizers: contributors who philosophically were opposed to nearly any exercise of authority, but who were not trolls themselves....

In retrospect, I wish I had taken Teddy Roosevelt's advice: '''"Speak softly and carry a big stick."''' Since my "stick" was very small, I suppose I felt compelled to "speak loudly," which I regret....

Perhaps the root cause of the governance problem was that we did not realize well enough that a community would form, nor did we think carefully about what this entailed. For months I denied that Wikipedia was a community, claiming that it was, instead, only an encyclopedia project, and that there should not be any serious governance problems if people would simply stick to the task of making an encyclopedia. This was strictly wishful thinking. In fact, Wikipedia was from the beginning and is both a community and an encyclopedia project. And ''for a community attempting to achieve something, to be serious, effective, and fair, a '''charter''' seems necessary''. In short, a collaborative community would do well to think of itself as a polity with everything that that entails: a representative '''legislative''', a competent and fair '''judiciary''', and an effective '''executive''', all defined in advance by a charter. There are special requirements of nearly every serious community, however, best served by relevant experts; and so I think a prominent role for the relevant experts should be written into the charter. I would recommend all of this to anyone launching a serious online community....

...the wiki format is not a magic pill that somehow makes all problems go away. Wiki is just one software paradigm, which must be adapted, supplemented, changed, or replaced in order to solve the unique set of problems a project faces.

...a controversy...began with a discussion of what to do about, and how to react to, [a] particular troll. I maintained that one should not "feed the troll," and that the troll should be "outed"...and shamed.

There resulted a broader controversy about how to treat problem users generally. There were, as I recall, two main schools of thought. '''One''', to which I adhered and still adhere, was that bona fide trolls should be '''"named and shamed"''' and, if they were unresponsive to shaming, they should be removed from the project (by a fair process) '''sooner rather than later'''. We held that a collaborative project requires commitment to ethical standards which are--as all ethical standards ultimately are--socially established by pointing out violations of those standards. Hence naming and shaming. A '''second''' school of thought held that all Wikipedia contributors, even the most difficult, should be treated respectfully and with so-called '''WikiLove'''. Hence trolls were not to be identified as such (since "troll" is a term of abuse), and were to be removed from the project only after a long (and painful) public discussion. For the latter school, it seemed to me, the only really egregious faux pas one could commit in the project was to suggest that there were objective standards that could be enforced via "shaming."

I felt at the time that the prevalence of the second school entailed rejection of both objective standards and rules-based authority....It was a perfect coup for the resident wiki-anarchists. I again left the project for several months....

==== Conclusions ====

I have some advice for anyone who would like to start new projects on the model of Wikipedia.

You can learn from Wikipedia's success; so, first and most importantly, see above for considerations about why Wikipedia works.

But you can also learn from our mistakes. The following primarily concerns project governance, because governance issues are, in my opinion, the primary failing of Wikipedia. Bear in mind, also, that these are only rough guidelines, for those who are starting projects that have enough resemblance to Wikipedia. These are not perfectly general rules:

* If you intend to create a very large, complex project, establish early on that there will be '''some non-negotiable policy'''. Wikis and collaborative projects necessarily build communities, and once a community becomes large enough, it absolutely must have rules to keep order and to keep people at work on the mission of the project. "Force of personality" might be enough to make a small group of people hang together; for better or worse, however, clearly enunciated rules are needed to make larger groups of people hang together.

* There is some policy that, with forethought, can be easily predicted will be necessary. Articulate this policy as soon as possible. Indeed, '''consider making a project charter''' to make it clear from the beginning what the basic principles governing the project will be. This will help the community to run more smoothly and allow participants to self-select correctly.

* Establish any necessary authority early and clearly. Managers should not be afraid to enforce the project charter by removing people from the project; as soon as it becomes necessary, it should be done. Standards that are not enforced in any way do not exist in any robust sense. '''Do not tolerate deliberate disruption''' from those who oppose your aims; tell them to start their own project; there's a potentially infinite amount of cyberspace.

* As any disagreements among project managers are apt to be publicly visible in a collaborative project, and as this is apt to undermine the (very important) moral authority of at least one manager, make sure management is on the same page from the beginning--preferably before launch. This requires a great deal of thinking through issues together.

* In knowledge-creation projects, and perhaps many other kinds of projects, make special roles for experts from the very beginning; do not attempt to add those roles later, as an afterthought. Specialists are one of your most important resources, and it is irrational not to use them as much as you can. Preferably, design the charter so that they are included and encouraged. Moreover, make the volunteer project management a '''meritocracy''', and ''not based on longevity'' but based on the ability to lead and contribute to the project; that is the only condition under which very many of the best qualified people will want to participate.

Another point needs more in-depth development.

Radical and untried new ideas require constant refinement and adaptation in order to succeed; the first proposal is very rarely the best, and project designers must learn from their mistakes and constantly redesign better projects.... And it seems to me that the Wikipedia community fell into a mistake by thinking that just one or two features--the wiki feature and the neutrality policy and a few other things--explained Wikipedia's success, and that those features can thus be applied with no significant changes to new projects. But there is no substitute for constant creativity and problem-solving--nor for honesty about what problems need solving. The honesty to recognize problems and creativity in solving them are, after all, what made Wikipedia succeed in the first place.

This is a crucial point: if you use a tool or model from another project, think through very carefully how that tool or model should be adapted. Do not assume that you need to use every feature, or every aspect of the surrounding culture, that you are borrowing. Wikipedia borrowed rather too much from (1) the culture of wikis, (2) unmoderated online discussions, and (3) free-wheeling online culture generally. To be sure, Wikipedia is also a product of those cultures, and works as well as it does largely because of what it borrowed from those cultures. But it also shares some of its more serious current flaws with such cultures. '''Those planning new projects, or wanting to overhaul old ones, might well bear in mind that a certain cultural context, including the context that has grown up around a tool, just might not be right for that project.''' Let me elaborate.

(1) Consider first the culture of wikis. On the one hand, I said we wanted to determine the best rules, and experience would help us determine that; so we had no rules to begin with. On the other hand, one might add that another reason we began without rules was that we were partaking in the extremely uncontrolled, free-wheeling nature of "traditional" wikis. I think that's right. But there is an excellent reason why an encyclopedia project should not partake in that extremely uncontrolled nature of wiki culture, and why it should adopt actually enforceable rules: unlike traditional wikis, encyclopedia projects have a very specific aim, with very specific constraints, and efficient work toward that aim, within those constraints, practically requires the adoption of enforceable rules. The mere fact that most wikis, when Wikipedia was created, did not have enforceable rules hardly meant that one could not innovate further, and create one that did have rules.

(2) Moreover, Jimmy and I and most of the first participants on Wikipedia were veterans of unmoderated Internet discussion groups, and hence, naturally, we could appreciate the advantages of letting a virtual community develop in the absence of any real (enforcement) authority. In unmoderated forums there is often found a sense, among some participants, that any attempt to oust a particularly troublesome user amounts to unjustifiable censorship. The result is that the existence of many unmoderated forums online has created a small army of people militantly opposed to the slightest restriction on speech, who feel that they do and should have a right to say whatever they like, wherever they like, online. Any attempt to create and enforce rules for Internet projects, when that small army is ready to cry "censorship," will seem daring or even outrageous in many contexts online. But there is an excellent reason why such anarchy is inappropriate for many projects, including encyclopedia projects, even one that is self-policing like a wiki: there simply must be a way to enforce rules in order for rules to be effective. Given that encyclopedia project development happens almost entirely using words, nearly any rules will also be restrictions on speech. Anyone who advocates many enforceable rules on a collaborative project, in the cultural context of an Internet filled with so many unmoderated discussion groups, can be made to seem reactionary. But this is only a result of that cultural context; in any other context, the existence of rules would be perfectly natural and unobjectionable.

(3) Finally, and generally speaking, the Internet is a great leveller. Since social interaction can proceed among complete strangers who cannot so much as see each other, things that seem to matter in many "meatspace" discussions, such as age, social status, and level of education, are often dismissed as unimportant online. Many Internet forums, chatrooms, and blogs are populated by people who are identified by only a "handle," and any suggestion that communication should be restricted or in any way altered in accordance with "expertise" or "authority" is likely to be met with outrage, in most forums. But there are several excellent and obvious reasons why expertise does need special consideration in an encyclopedia project, and in other collaborative projects. First, there are many subjects that dilettantes cannot write about credibly; I, for example, could not write very credibly about astronomy or speleology, but I have a passing interest in both. If I am working only with other dilettantes, our articles are apt to remain amateurish at best; we can fill in the gaps in each other's knowledge, and do research, but the results will remain problematic until someone with more knowledge of the subject contributes. Second, there are very many specialized subjects about which no one but experts has any significant knowledge at all. Third, it is only the opinions of experts that will be trusted by most of the public as authoritative in determining whether an article is generally reliable or not. Moreover, the standards of public credibility are not likely to be changed by the widespread use of Wikipedia or by online debate about the reliability of Wikipedia. Like them or hate them, those are the facts. But if one points these facts out online, culturally "levelled" as it is, particularly in forums or projects like Wikipedia which go out of their way to ignore individual differences among people, one finds a frosty reception at best.

Consider, if you will, that it was because Wikipedia was started in the context of the ingrained cultures of wikis, of unmoderated discussion forums, and of the levelling, anti-elitist influence of the Internet at large, that it was very difficult for us to exercise the maximal amount of creativity that a maximally successful project would require. In establishing a new cultural context, we were deeply constrained by the old. Now, to be sure, I have said above and many times elsewhere that Wikipedia did not have to adopt the particular conjunction of policies that it did. But it is not surprising that it did adopt its particular conjunction of policies, considering the conjunction of influences on its development. So it would have required much more explanation and persuasion, and indeed, much more struggle, for us to, for example, have persuaded potential participants that some persons, even in a wiki environment, should have special rights that others do not. So powerful is the influence of cultural context that there are quite a few people whose lack of imagination is such that they believe I simply must not understand "why Wikipedia works" if I am willing to suggest that it does not have to work in precisely the way it does work. Constantly-reinforced cultural habits die very hard indeed, and place very strong constraints upon what can be imagined, and what bare possibilities seem even worth thinking about.

But it was our willingness to exercise our creativity and follow our imagination, and create what is, to some extent, a new kind of culture, that led to Wikipedia's success. For the overall project of creating open content encyclopedias--and indeed, for the fantastic collaborative Internet that has yet to be created--to reach its full potential, the process of identifying mistakes honestly and creatively seeking solutions must be ramped up and continued unabated.

Charter/Sources/Sanger

2005-04-25T07:01:03Z

Xiong: /* Part 2 */ add

Larry Sanger has had a lot to say about Wikipedia over the years. These are a few excerpts. In some cases, emphasis has been added, links have been broken, and the text otherwise mangled.

== Slashdot ==

=== Part 1 ===

[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir]

...Some questions have been raised about the origin of Wikipedia policies. The tale is interesting and instructive, and one of the main themes of this memoir. We began with no (or few) policies in particular and said that the community would determine--through a sort of vague consensus, based on its experience working together--what the policies would be. The very first entry on a "rules to consider" page was the '''"Ignore All Rules"''' rule (to wit: ''"If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business"''). This is a "rule" that, current Wikipedians might be surprised to learn, I personally proposed. The reason was that I thought we needed experience with how wikis should work, and even more importantly at that point we needed participants more than we needed rules. As the project grew and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular "rule" and then rejected it altogether. As one participant later commented, "this rule is the essence of Wikipedia." That was certainly never my view; I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc. In a similar spirit, I proposed that contributors '''be bold''' in updating pages (the current version is much expanded, as it should be)....

...I could only attempt to '''shame any troublemakers''' into compliance; without recourse to any genuine punitive action, that was the most I could do. In about the first eight months of the project, this was usually sufficient for me to do my job. After that, however, my job got increasingly difficult, as I will explain.

So Wikipedia began as a good-natured anarchy, a sort of Rousseauian state of digital nature. I always took Wikipedia's anarchy to be provisional and purely for purposes of determining what the best rules, and the nature of its authority, should be. What I, and other Wikipedians, failed to realize is that our '''initial anarchy''' would be taken by the next wave of contributors as the very '''essence of the project'''--how Wikipedia was "meant" to be...

...Wikipedia became what it is today because, having been seeded with great people with a fairly clear idea of what they wanted to achieve, we proceeded to make a series of free decisions that determined the policy of the project and culture of its supporting community. Wikipedia's system is neither the only way to run a wiki, nor the only way to run an open content encyclopedia. Its particular conjunction of policies is in no way natural, "organic," or necessary. It is instead artificial, a result of a series of free choices, and we could have chosen differently in many cases; and choosing differently on some issues might have led to a project better than the one that exists today.

Though it began as an anarchy, there were quite a few policies that were settled upon, more or less, within the first six months or so. This required some struggle, especially on my part, particularly because, since the project was a wiki, some participants thought that there should be no rules at all. (Enforceable rules were regarded as "anti-wiki," which was supposed to be a bad thing.) But it was made clear from the beginning that we intended Wikipedia to be an '''encyclopedia''', and so we were able to plug for at least those rules that would help define and sustain the project as an encyclopedia.

For instance, throughout the early months, people added various content that seemed less than encyclopedic in various ways.... As people found new ways not to write encyclopedia articles, I started '''"What Wikipedia is not"'''...

Many of our first controversies were over these restrictions. At the time, I had enough influence within the community to get these policies generally accepted. And if we had not decided on these restrictions, Wikipedia might well have ended up, like many wikis, as nothing in particular. But since we insisted that it was an encyclopedia, even though it was just a blank wiki and a group of people to begin with, it became an encyclopedia. There is something very profound about that. I also like to think that we helped to show the world the potential that wikis have.

Another policy that was instituted early on was the '''nonbias or neutrality policy'''. This was borrowed from the Nupedia project and made a Rule to Consider--in a very early version, the policy was put this way:

: '''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact. (3) is strongly preferred.

Jimmy then started a specialized policy page he called "Neutral Point of View".... I confess I don't much like this name as a name for the policy, because it implies that to write neutrally, or without bias, is actually to express a point of view, and, as the definite article is used, a single point of view at that. "Neutrality", "neutral", and "neutrally" are better to use for the noun, adjective, and adverb. But the acronym "NPOV" came to be used for all three, by Wikipedians wanting to seem hip, and then the unfortunate "POV" came to be used when the perfectly good English word "biased" would do.

In addition to these, I recall suggesting a number of other rules...I think these policies were just a matter of common sense for anyone who understood what a good encyclopedia should be like. And of course I was not the only person proposing conventions. Moreover, actual project policy, or community habits, succeeded in being established only by being followed and supported by a majority of participants. It was then, we said, that there was a '''"rough consensus"''' in favor of the policy. And consensus, we said, is required for a policy actually to be considered project policy. For our purposes, a "consensus" appeared to consist of (1) widespread common practice, (2) many vocal defenders, and (3) virtually no detractors.

But that way of settling upon policy proposals--viz., by alleged consensus--'''did not scale''', in my opinion. After about nine months or so, there were so many contributors, and especially brand new contributors, that nothing like a consensus could be reached, for the simple reason that condition (3) above was never achievable: there would after that always be somebody who insisted on expressing disagreement. There was, then, a non-scaling policy adoption procedure, and a crying need to continue to adopt sensible policies. This led to some pretty serious problems in the community...

=== Part 2 ===

[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95 The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia, Part II]

This is a good place to explain why Wikipedia actually got started and why it worked (and still does work, at least as well as it does). The explanation involves a combination of quite a few factors, some borrowed from the open source movement, some borrowed from wiki software and culture, and some more idiosyncratic:

: 1. ''Open content license.'' We promised contributors that their work would always remain free for others to read. This, as is well known, motivates people to work for the good of the world--and for the many people who would like to teach the whole world, that's a pretty strong motivation.

: 2. ''Focus on the encyclopedia.'' We said that we were creating an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, etc., and we encouraged people to stick to creating the encyclopedia and not use the project as a debate forum.

: 3. ''Openness.'' Anyone could contribute. Everyone was specifically made to feel welcome. (E.g., we encouraged the habit of writing on new contributors' user pages, "Welcome to Wikipedia!" etc.) There was no sense that someone would be turned away for not being bright enough, or not being a good enough writer, or whatever.

: 4. ''Ease of editing.'' Wikis are pretty easy for most people to figure out. In other collaborative systems (like Nupedia), you have to learn all about the system first. Wikipedia had an almost flat learning curve.

: 5. C''ollaborate radically; don't sign articles.'' Radical collaboration, in which (in principle) anyone can edit any part of anyone else's work, is one of the great innovations of the open source software movement. On Wikipedia, radical collaboration made it possible for work to move forward on all fronts at the same time, to avoid the big bottleneck that is the individual author, and to burnish articles on popular topics to a fine luster.

: 6. ''Offer unedited, unapproved content for further development.'' This is required if one wishes to collaborate radically. We encouraged putting up their unfinished drafts--as long as they were at least roughly correct--with the idea that they can only improve if there are others collaborating. This is a classic principle of open source software. It helped get Wikipedia started and helped keep it moving. This is why so many original drafts of Wikipedia articles were basically garbage (no offense to anyone--some of my own drafts were sometimes garbage), and also why it is surprising to the uninitiated that many articles have turned out very well indeed.

: 7. ''Neutrality.'' A firm neutrality policy made it possible for people of widely divergent opinions to work together, without constantly fighting. It's a way to keep the peace.

: 8. ''Start with a core of good people.'' I think it was essential that we began the project with a core group of intelligent good writers who understood what an encyclopedia should look like, and who were basically decent human beings.

: 9. ''Enjoy the Google effect.'' We had little to do with this, but had Google not sent us an increasing amount of traffic each time they spidered the growing website, we would not have grown nearly as fast as we did. (See below.)

That's pretty much it. The focus on the encyclopedia provided the task and the open content license provided a natural motivation: people work hard if they believe they are teaching the world stuff. Openness and ease of editing made it easy for new people to join in and get to work. Collaboration helped move work forward quickly and efficiently, and posting unedited drafts made collaboration possible. The fact that we started with a core of good people from Nupedia meant that the project could develop a functional, cooperative community. Neutrality made it easy for people to work together with relatively little conflict. And the Google effect provided a steady supply of "fresh blood"--who in turn supplied increasing amounts of content.

Probably, all or nearly all other project rules were either optional, or straightforward applications of these principles....

==== A series of controversies ====

So much for the very early history of Wikipedia; the next phase involved rapid growth and some serious internal controversies over policy and authority. If Wikipedia's basic policy was settled upon in the first nine months, its culture was solidified into something closer to its present form in the next nine.

The project continued to grow....

This growth brought difficult challenges, challenges that perhaps I did not sufficiently anticipate and plan for. Some of our earliest contributors were academics and other highly-qualified people, and it seems to me that they were slowly worn down and driven away by having to deal with difficult people on the project.... So there was a growing problem: ''persistent and difficult contributors tend to drive away many better, more valuable contributors....'' There were many more who quietly came and quietly left. Short of removing the problem contributors altogether--which we did only in the very worst cases--there was no easy solution, under the system as we had set it up. And I am sorry to have to admit that those aspects of the system that led to this problem were as much my responsibility as anyone else's. Obviously, '''I would not design the system the same way if given the chance again.'''

As a result, I grew both more protective of the project and increasingly sensitive to abuse of the system. As I tried to exercise what little authority I claimed, as a corrective to such abuse, many newer arrivals on the scene made great sport of challenging my authority. One of the earliest challenges happened in late summer, 2001. [''a discussion of archiving vandalism''] At the time, I thought that this controversy was just as silly as it will sound to most people reading this; I thought that I needed only to "put my foot down" a little harder and, as had happened for the first six months of the project, participants would fall into line. What I did not realize was that this was to be only the first in a long series of controversies, the ultimate upshot of which was to undermine my own moral authority over the project and to make the project ''as safe as possible for the most abusive and contentious contributors''.

Throughout this and other early controversies, much of the debate about project policy was conducted on the wiki itself.... It seemed to me, and many other contributors, that this debate was distracting the community from our main goal: to create an encyclopedia. Consequently I proposed that we '''move the debate''' to another wiki that was to be created specifically for that purpose--what became known as the "meta wiki."...

...In the first years, only the worst trolls were ever expelled from the project. I do not know whether this policy has been changed as a result of the operation of the much-later installed Arbitration Committee.

...On a wiki, contributions exist in perpetuity, as it were, or until they are deleted or radically changed; consequently, anyone new to a discussion sees the first contribution first. So ''whoever starts a new page for discussion also, to a great extent, sets the tone and agenda of the discussion.'' Moreover, nasty, heated exchanges live on forever on a wiki, festering like an open wound, unless deliberately toned down afterwards; if the same exchange takes place on a mailing list, it slips mercifully and quietly into the archives.

At about the same time... I wrote an essay titled, "Is Wikipedia an experiment in anarchy?" This and the discussion that ensued tended to ossify positions with regard to the authority issue: I and a few others agreed that '''Jimmy and I should have special authority within the system''', to settle policy issues that needed settling. Jimmy was relatively quiet about this issue....

By November or December of 2001, Wikipedia was growing so fast ... we knew that large influxes of members could have a tendency to change the nature of the project, and not necessarily for the better.... I proposed what I thought was a humorously-named "Wikipedia Militia" which would manage new (and very welcome) "invasions" by new contributors. By this time, however, there was a small core group of people who were constantly on the watch for anything that smacked the least bit of authoritarianism; consequently, the name, and various aspects of how the proposal was presented, were vigorously debated. Eventually, we switched to "The Wikipedia Welcoming Committee" and finally, the "Volunteer Fire Department"--which eventually, it seems, fell into disuse.

==== The governance challenge ====

... I composed a page originally called "Our Replies to Our Critics" (and now called "Replies to Common Objections")...

: Moreover--and this is something that you might not be able to understand very well if you haven't actually experienced it--there is a fair bit of (mostly friendly) peer pressure, and community standards are constantly being reinforced. The cranks and partisans, etc., are not simply outgunned. They also receive considerable opprobrium if they abuse the system.

This reflects very well the conception I had in September 2001 of Wikipedia's culture; the reply above was as much hopeful and prescriptive as descriptive. But it turned out to be only partly true. As difficult users began to have more of a "run of the place," in late 2001 and 2002, opprobrium was in fact meted out only piecemeal and inconsistently. It seemed that participation in the community was becoming increasingly a struggle over principles, rather than a shared effort toward shared goals. Any attempt to enforce what should have been set policy--neutrality, no original research, and no wholesale deletion without explanation--was frequently if not usually met with resistance. It was difficult to claim the moral high ground in a dispute, because the basic project principles were constantly coming under attack. Consequently, Wikipedia's environment was not cooperative but instead competitive, and the competition often concerned what sort of community Wikipedia should be: radically anarchical and uncontrolled, or instead more singlemindedly devoted to building an encyclopedia. Sadly, few among those who would love to work on Wikipedia could thrive in such a protean environment.

It is one thing to lack any equivalent to "police" and "courts" that can quickly and effectively eliminate abuse; such enforcement systems were rarely entertained in Wikipedia's early years, because according to the wiki ideal, users can effectively police each other. It is another thing altogether to lack a community ethos that is unified in its commitment to its basic ideals, so that the community's champions could claim a moral high ground. So why was there no such unified community ethos and no uncontroversial "moral high ground"? I think it was a simple consequence of the fact that the community was to be largely self-organizing and to set its own policy by consensus. Any loud minority, even a persistent minority of one person, can remove the appearance of consensus. ...I felt compelled by ongoing controversies to request that Jimmy declare that ''certain policies were in fact non-negotiable'', which he did. Unfortunately, this declaration was too little, too late, in my opinion.

By late 2001, I had gained both friends and detractors. I think I had become, within the project, a '''symbol of opposition to anarchism''', of the enforcement of standards, and consequently of the exercise of authority in a radically open project... I came to the view, finally and belatedly, that it would be better to '''"ignore the trolls."''' But as it turns out, this is particularly hard to do on a wiki, because, again, unlike on an e-mail list, trollish contributions do not just disappear into the archives; they sit out in the open, as available as the first day they appeared, and "festering." Attempts to delete or radically edit such contributions were often met by reposting the earlier, problem version: the ability to do that is a necessary feature of collaboration. Persistent trolls could, thus, be a serious problem, particularly if they were able to draw a sympathetic audience. And there was often an audience of sympathizers: contributors who philosophically were opposed to nearly any exercise of authority, but who were not trolls themselves....

In retrospect, I wish I had taken Teddy Roosevelt's advice: '''"Speak softly and carry a big stick."''' Since my "stick" was very small, I suppose I felt compelled to "speak loudly," which I regret....

Perhaps the root cause of the governance problem was that we did not realize well enough that a community would form, nor did we think carefully about what this entailed. For months I denied that Wikipedia was a community, claiming that it was, instead, only an encyclopedia project, and that there should not be any serious governance problems if people would simply stick to the task of making an encyclopedia. This was strictly wishful thinking. In fact, Wikipedia was from the beginning and is both a community and an encyclopedia project. And ''for a community attempting to achieve something, to be serious, effective, and fair, a '''charter''' seems necessary''. In short, a collaborative community would do well to think of itself as a polity with everything that that entails: a representative '''legislative''', a competent and fair '''judiciary''', and an effective '''executive''', all defined in advance by a charter. There are special requirements of nearly every serious community, however, best served by relevant experts; and so I think a prominent role for the relevant experts should be written into the charter. I would recommend all of this to anyone launching a serious online community....

...the wiki format is not a magic pill that somehow makes all problems go away. Wiki is just one software paradigm, which must be adapted, supplemented, changed, or replaced in order to solve the unique set of problems a project faces.

...a controversy...began with a discussion of what to do about, and how to react to, [a] particular troll. I maintained that one should not "feed the troll," and that the troll should be "outed"...and shamed.

There resulted a broader controversy about how to treat problem users generally. There were, as I recall, two main schools of thought. '''One''', to which I adhered and still adhere, was that bona fide trolls should be '''"named and shamed"''' and, if they were unresponsive to shaming, they should be removed from the project (by a fair process) '''sooner rather than later'''. We held that a collaborative project requires commitment to ethical standards which are--as all ethical standards ultimately are--socially established by pointing out violations of those standards. Hence naming and shaming. A '''second''' school of thought held that all Wikipedia contributors, even the most difficult, should be treated respectfully and with so-called '''WikiLove'''. Hence trolls were not to be identified as such (since "troll" is a term of abuse), and were to be removed from the project only after a long (and painful) public discussion. For the latter school, it seemed to me, the only really egregious faux pas one could commit in the project was to suggest that there were objective standards that could be enforced via "shaming."

I felt at the time that the prevalence of the second school entailed rejection of both objective standards and rules-based authority....It was a perfect coup for the resident wiki-anarchists. I again left the project for several months....

==== Conclusions ====

I have some advice for anyone who would like to start new projects on the model of Wikipedia.

You can learn from Wikipedia's success; so, first and most importantly, see above for considerations about why Wikipedia works.

But you can also learn from our mistakes. The following primarily concerns project governance, because governance issues are, in my opinion, the primary failing of Wikipedia. Bear in mind, also, that these are only rough guidelines, for those who are starting projects that have enough resemblance to Wikipedia. These are not perfectly general rules:

* If you intend to create a very large, complex project, establish early on that there will be '''some non-negotiable policy'''. Wikis and collaborative projects necessarily build communities, and once a community becomes large enough, it absolutely must have rules to keep order and to keep people at work on the mission of the project. "Force of personality" might be enough to make a small group of people hang together; for better or worse, however, clearly enunciated rules are needed to make larger groups of people hang together.

* There is some policy that, with forethought, can be easily predicted will be necessary. Articulate this policy as soon as possible. Indeed, '''consider making a project charter''' to make it clear from the beginning what the basic principles governing the project will be. This will help the community to run more smoothly and allow participants to self-select correctly.

* Establish any necessary authority early and clearly. Managers should not be afraid to enforce the project charter by removing people from the project; as soon as it becomes necessary, it should be done. Standards that are not enforced in any way do not exist in any robust sense. '''Do not tolerate deliberate disruption''' from those who oppose your aims; tell them to start their own project; there's a potentially infinite amount of cyberspace.

* As any disagreements among project managers are apt to be publicly visible in a collaborative project, and as this is apt to undermine the (very important) moral authority of at least one manager, make sure management is on the same page from the beginning--preferably before launch. This requires a great deal of thinking through issues together.

* In knowledge-creation projects, and perhaps many other kinds of projects, make special roles for experts from the very beginning; do not attempt to add those roles later, as an afterthought. Specialists are one of your most important resources, and it is irrational not to use them as much as you can. Preferably, design the charter so that they are included and encouraged. Moreover, make the volunteer project management a '''meritocracy''', and ''not based on longevity'' but based on the ability to lead and contribute to the project; that is the only condition under which very many of the best qualified people will want to participate.

Another point needs more in-depth development.

Radical and untried new ideas require constant refinement and adaptation in order to succeed; the first proposal is very rarely the best, and project designers must learn from their mistakes and constantly redesign better projects.... And it seems to me that the Wikipedia community fell into a mistake by thinking that just one or two features--the wiki feature and the neutrality policy and a few other things--explained Wikipedia's success, and that those features can thus be applied with no significant changes to new projects. But there is no substitute for constant creativity and problem-solving--nor for honesty about what problems need solving. The honesty to recognize problems and creativity in solving them are, after all, what made Wikipedia succeed in the first place.

This is a crucial point: if you use a tool or model from another project, think through very carefully how that tool or model should be adapted. Do not assume that you need to use every feature, or every aspect of the surrounding culture, that you are borrowing. Wikipedia borrowed rather too much from (1) the culture of wikis, (2) unmoderated online discussions, and (3) free-wheeling online culture generally. To be sure, Wikipedia is also a product of those cultures, and works as well as it does largely because of what it borrowed from those cultures. But it also shares some of its more serious current flaws with such cultures. '''Those planning new projects, or wanting to overhaul old ones, might well bear in mind that a certain cultural context, including the context that has grown up around a tool, just might not be right for that project.''' Let me elaborate.

(1) Consider first the culture of wikis. On the one hand, I said we wanted to determine the best rules, and experience would help us determine that; so we had no rules to begin with. On the other hand, one might add that another reason we began without rules was that we were partaking in the extremely uncontrolled, free-wheeling nature of "traditional" wikis. I think that's right. But there is an excellent reason why an encyclopedia project should not partake in that extremely uncontrolled nature of wiki culture, and why it should adopt actually enforceable rules: unlike traditional wikis, encyclopedia projects have a very specific aim, with very specific constraints, and efficient work toward that aim, within those constraints, practically requires the adoption of enforceable rules. The mere fact that most wikis, when Wikipedia was created, did not have enforceable rules hardly meant that one could not innovate further, and create one that did have rules.

(2) Moreover, Jimmy and I and most of the first participants on Wikipedia were veterans of unmoderated Internet discussion groups, and hence, naturally, we could appreciate the advantages of letting a virtual community develop in the absence of any real (enforcement) authority. In unmoderated forums there is often found a sense, among some participants, that any attempt to oust a particularly troublesome user amounts to unjustifiable censorship. The result is that the existence of many unmoderated forums online has created a small army of people militantly opposed to the slightest restriction on speech, who feel that they do and should have a right to say whatever they like, wherever they like, online. Any attempt to create and enforce rules for Internet projects, when that small army is ready to cry "censorship," will seem daring or even outrageous in many contexts online. But there is an excellent reason why such anarchy is inappropriate for many projects, including encyclopedia projects, even one that is self-policing like a wiki: there simply must be a way to enforce rules in order for rules to be effective. Given that encyclopedia project development happens almost entirely using words, nearly any rules will also be restrictions on speech. Anyone who advocates many enforceable rules on a collaborative project, in the cultural context of an Internet filled with so many unmoderated discussion groups, can be made to seem reactionary. But this is only a result of that cultural context; in any other context, the existence of rules would be perfectly natural and unobjectionable.

(3) Finally, and generally speaking, the Internet is a great leveller. Since social interaction can proceed among complete strangers who cannot so much as see each other, things that seem to matter in many "meatspace" discussions, such as age, social status, and level of education, are often dismissed as unimportant online. Many Internet forums, chatrooms, and blogs are populated by people who are identified by only a "handle," and any suggestion that communication should be restricted or in any way altered in accordance with "expertise" or "authority" is likely to be met with outrage, in most forums. But there are several excellent and obvious reasons why expertise does need special consideration in an encyclopedia project, and in other collaborative projects. First, there are many subjects that dilettantes cannot write about credibly; I, for example, could not write very credibly about astronomy or speleology, but I have a passing interest in both. If I am working only with other dilettantes, our articles are apt to remain amateurish at best; we can fill in the gaps in each other's knowledge, and do research, but the results will remain problematic until someone with more knowledge of the subject contributes. Second, there are very many specialized subjects about which no one but experts has any significant knowledge at all. Third, it is only the opinions of experts that will be trusted by most of the public as authoritative in determining whether an article is generally reliable or not. Moreover, the standards of public credibility are not likely to be changed by the widespread use of Wikipedia or by online debate about the reliability of Wikipedia. Like them or hate them, those are the facts. But if one points these facts out online, culturally "levelled" as it is, particularly in forums or projects like Wikipedia which go out of their way to ignore individual differences among people, one finds a frosty reception at best.

Consider, if you will, that it was because Wikipedia was started in the context of the ingrained cultures of wikis, of unmoderated discussion forums, and of the levelling, anti-elitist influence of the Internet at large, that it was very difficult for us to exercise the maximal amount of creativity that a maximally successful project would require. In establishing a new cultural context, we were deeply constrained by the old. Now, to be sure, I have said above and many times elsewhere that Wikipedia did not have to adopt the particular conjunction of policies that it did. But it is not surprising that it did adopt its particular conjunction of policies, considering the conjunction of influences on its development. So it would have required much more explanation and persuasion, and indeed, much more struggle, for us to, for example, have persuaded potential participants that some persons, even in a wiki environment, should have special rights that others do not. So powerful is the influence of cultural context that there are quite a few people whose lack of imagination is such that they believe I simply must not understand "why Wikipedia works" if I am willing to suggest that it does not have to work in precisely the way it does work. Constantly-reinforced cultural habits die very hard indeed, and place very strong constraints upon what can be imagined, and what bare possibilities seem even worth thinking about.

But it was our willingness to exercise our creativity and follow our imagination, and create what is, to some extent, a new kind of culture, that led to Wikipedia's success. For the overall project of creating open content encyclopedias--and indeed, for the fantastic collaborative Internet that has yet to be created--to reach its full potential, the process of identifying mistakes honestly and creatively seeking solutions must be ramped up and continued unabated.

User talk:Troll Bridge on the River Kwai

2005-04-25T06:08:20Z

Xiong: Thank You!

Charter/Sources

2005-04-25T06:06:13Z

Xiong:

{{: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/Simple view of ethics and morals

2005-04-25T06:05:38Z

Xiong:

{{:Charter/Nav}}

''This '''simple view of ethics and morals''' introduces these issues to those with no background, or perhaps with no interest, in academic [[meta-ethics|moral philosophy]].''

[[Ethics]] is often called the [[science]] of [[morality]]. It attempts to make consistent descriptions of complex situations and difficult decisions. It is considered to be important because, to those who practice the ethical tradition in which the descriptions are applied, it answers the big question, "How should we live?" The very questions presupposes that we can define 'how' (method), 'should' (ambition), 'we' (a group seeking consensus), 'live' (beings with bodies). Without this context, ethics is generally just talk implying moral judgement''- this is usually called [[normative ethics]].''

== Being Practical ==

Practical and [[applied ethics]] is often thought of as a process of de-escalating moral conflicts to the point of [[nonviolence|non-violent]] resolution, [[harm reduction|reducing harm]], and [[education|educating]] as required so that each participant in a conflict can effectively see the other's [[point of view]].

Without this, we fall back to the simplistic view, which is "I am right and you are wrong and you do what I say." (''This is usually called [[moral absolutism]]''). This kind of assertion, backed by force, is the basis of much authority and it leads to violence very often. So much so that it turns out not to be the simplest way to live among humans in the long run, even if it is accepted by small groups (say a whole [[family]]) in the short run.

== Balancing Rights ==

A simple, practical view, as advanced by [[Rushworth Kidder]], is that ethics balances "right versus right": if there's a dispute we care to hear, then each side must have some right on it. However, this presupposes some instinctive moral core of the individual that must recognize right and wrong, else we do not have two individuals asserting "right" and requiring ethical help: if either in fact secretly believes themselves "wrong" then they are engaging in tactics to reduce the chance of getting caught or alerting others to it, neither of which is studied by ethics. Ethics can thus be viewed as a lever but one that rests on a moral fulcrum of pre-existing assumptions, like the bodies of the beings in conflict, placed there by circumstances, environments, situations, mostly out of their control - only the choice of resolution is under their own control.
''See also on this: [[situational ethics]] and [[situated ethics]].''

Taking such a simple view requires everyone involved to see ethics as a process outside the body, and morality as something instinctive and within. This view thus completely reverses the classical Greek view that ethos, or "character" was internal, and [[mores]], or "custom", came from the society. But then, the ancient Greeks viewed religion and the responsibilties of a tutor in a different way that most moderns do. The classical Greek view leads, in the view of some more modern [[Christianity|Christian]] philosophers such as [[Margaret Visser]], to [[fatalism]] and [[revenge]], and to [[retributive justice]] in the [[law]]. Those who find these measures desirable thus have an alternative simple view.

== Defining the Simple ==

[[Jane Jacobs]] commented on two irreconcilable moral syndromes that could be said to arise from those views. [[George Lakoff]]'s theory of moral politics states that these arise from [[family]] role differences ultimately, with a [[moral code]] emphasizing the [[logos]] or "rule" of the father as being the source of the motivations of the political "right", and one emphasizing the more merciful moderns or mother-like view as being moral source for the "left".

If these views are at all valid, then, the two simplest theories tend to conflict, and their differences evolve into some full system of [[politics]] - which, as [[Bernard Crick]] put it, is "ethics carried out in public". His list of [[political virtues]] is an attempt to frame politics as a form of ethics, and ethics as a form of conflict resolution. However, the idea that moral principles are universal continues to persist, and most people probably believe that there is ethics independent of any politics.

Despite wide differences in the ways that people live, there are a few widely-accepted moral principles that cross most cultural boundaries. There is a tendency in most societies to support belief and safety over doubt and risk, to support [[justice|fairness]], [[consent]] and [[duty]] over [[dissent]], to support [[knowledge]] instead of [[ignorance]], to support trust, and [[honesty]] over [[lie|lying]] and to be against what the culture considers [[evil]]. It is actually not possible to use any of those words without moral judgements - possibly inherited from the dictionary ''- this is studied in [[meta-ethics]].''

== Right to Thrive ==

One nearly-universal moral principle is some form of the golden rule: "Act towards other people as you would want others to act towards you." Another principle is that a person can only be blamed or praised if they could choose to act or refuse to act. Another is that there seems to be something good about helping living things in general, or compassion or empathy.

Some principles seem to be based firmly in each living beings' makeup - e.g. a mammal would hardly argue against 'motherhood', although a reptile might if it never knew its mother. But the same things can lead us to difficult moral choices - while a sexually reproducing animal would not argue against 'beauty', it could recognize the unallayed pursuit of it as an excess likely to do great harm (say to mothers).

It is useful to distinguish "good from bad" in our actions just as we might distinguish "good from evil" morally in our thoughts. It's also useful to recognize that we use the word "right" to assert what we are due and to judge what is correct. To anything that's alive, it's "right" for it to live, that too is built into the body. If a creature is physically fit and capable of thriving in its environment, it takes a lot to overcome a preference to live:

== Social Judgement ==

Ethics begins when we try to use "right", "wrong", "good", "bad" and "evil" as labels in a sharable, predictable, way. Else it is just a moral judgement and not a basis for cooperation with other people in any due process or law.

Most surviving societies recognize certain acts that are usually bad for the society, such as lying, stealing, murder of people, adultery, and impiety (to God or Nature which in early societies was often the same). Mature societies recognize ecological and personal obligations that may contradict the social:

Therefore, etiquette (or "diplomacy" or "de-escalation") often requires that a painful truth be avoided, or even that a disruptive presence be silenced... many otherwise "civilized" societies jail, exile, or even execute individuals. ''See [[social contract]].''

This highlights the differences between individual and social responsibility - very often people rely on society or labor specialization to do things (like kill chickens or "terrorists") that they simply would not do for themselves. ''Whether such delegation of [[violence]] is desirable, and systems to do so, is studied in [[civics]].''

== Complexity Brings Doubt ==

As ethical theories become more specific, they can become more controversial. Unlike many other kinds of theories, they can be wrong simply because they cannot be applied fairly in practice! Very often, they are an excuse for continuing behavior felt to be immoral - whether behavior can ever be "known" to be immoral is another basic question.

Even the above version of the golden rule can be doubted, i.e. what if the "person" is not human, or has deliberately killed a human? Is it right to treat such a person like a human if they would be harmed by reciprocal treatment? What makes us decide that a person is worthy of respect in the first place? A body? Ape-like gestures? A corporate charter?

Philosophers have debated ethical theories for thousands of years, and many of the criticisms are complex, subtle and technical. Discussing such criticisms is beyond the scope of this article. Usually, [[ethics]] does not stand alone but alongside, and most often in relation to [[epistemology]] (the study of the nature of knowledge and how is it obtained) and [[metaphysics]] (the study of the fundamental nature of reality and the universe) to constitute "a [[philosophy]]". Theologians and some philosophers phrase these questions somewhat differently, in terms of [[cosmology]] (God in the universe), [[ontology]] (what exists), and morals. As morals are difficult or impossible to transfer out of context, one generally studies ethics case by case - or "fable by fable".

== Smaller is Simpler ==

All of this may introduce impractical complexities, though. So, consider again the "simplistic view" (I'm right you're wrong) of [[moral absolutism]] and two "simple views" (ethos as character, [[mores]] as rules VERSUS morals as aesthetics, ethics as dispute resolution). If you accept that the simple views (but not the simplistic view) can co-exist and both be right that is [[moral relativism]]. If you take the more "practical view" that we can't avoid [[politics]] (moderated but potentially violent conflict) between simple, simplistic, and more complex views, then you are neither an absolutist nor a relativist, and believe in some kind of moral [[cognition]].

Because of this inherent complexity of moral reasoning and too many academic "[[-ism|isms]]", it may be easier still to act in a simple ethical harmony with one's immediate social and environmental surroundings. People often agree on things in context of a small group, get them done, and live in harmony. The ideal size of a corporation has been stated as 70 people, and an ideal village no more than 120-150. At this scale, the ''simple view'' can be applied directly, and one need do no more than assess what moral concepts mean to the group. In other words, assess morality very informally and apply only informal sanctions or punishments with little or no need for force.

As groups and societies get larger, technology advances, and violence more likely, that shared moral cognition gets harder to manage. Some rigorous [[epistemology]] agreements like a [[moral code]] or standard of [[evidence]] must be applied. These, and [[politics|political]] standards like an [[vote|electoral process]], increase the potential for agreement and decrease the potential for violence, at the cost of added complexity and requirement to place trust in some referees (like judges or constitutional monarchs or a church or GodKing). At some point this becomes indistinguishable from the simplistic trust in authority, and, probably, the cycle of agreeing must begin all over again, in smaller units of trust.

See also: [[list of ethics topics]], [[business ethics]], [[ethical code]]

====References====
* Adapted from the Wikinfo article, "Simple view of ethics and morals" http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Simple_view_of_ethics_and_morals, used under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]]

Charter/Sources/Simple view of ethics and morals

2005-04-25T06:05:09Z

Xiong: add nav

[[:Charter/Nav]]

''This '''simple view of ethics and morals''' introduces these issues to those with no background, or perhaps with no interest, in academic [[meta-ethics|moral philosophy]].''

[[Ethics]] is often called the [[science]] of [[morality]]. It attempts to make consistent descriptions of complex situations and difficult decisions. It is considered to be important because, to those who practice the ethical tradition in which the descriptions are applied, it answers the big question, "How should we live?" The very questions presupposes that we can define 'how' (method), 'should' (ambition), 'we' (a group seeking consensus), 'live' (beings with bodies). Without this context, ethics is generally just talk implying moral judgement''- this is usually called [[normative ethics]].''

== Being Practical ==

Practical and [[applied ethics]] is often thought of as a process of de-escalating moral conflicts to the point of [[nonviolence|non-violent]] resolution, [[harm reduction|reducing harm]], and [[education|educating]] as required so that each participant in a conflict can effectively see the other's [[point of view]].

Without this, we fall back to the simplistic view, which is "I am right and you are wrong and you do what I say." (''This is usually called [[moral absolutism]]''). This kind of assertion, backed by force, is the basis of much authority and it leads to violence very often. So much so that it turns out not to be the simplest way to live among humans in the long run, even if it is accepted by small groups (say a whole [[family]]) in the short run.

== Balancing Rights ==

A simple, practical view, as advanced by [[Rushworth Kidder]], is that ethics balances "right versus right": if there's a dispute we care to hear, then each side must have some right on it. However, this presupposes some instinctive moral core of the individual that must recognize right and wrong, else we do not have two individuals asserting "right" and requiring ethical help: if either in fact secretly believes themselves "wrong" then they are engaging in tactics to reduce the chance of getting caught or alerting others to it, neither of which is studied by ethics. Ethics can thus be viewed as a lever but one that rests on a moral fulcrum of pre-existing assumptions, like the bodies of the beings in conflict, placed there by circumstances, environments, situations, mostly out of their control - only the choice of resolution is under their own control.
''See also on this: [[situational ethics]] and [[situated ethics]].''

Taking such a simple view requires everyone involved to see ethics as a process outside the body, and morality as something instinctive and within. This view thus completely reverses the classical Greek view that ethos, or "character" was internal, and [[mores]], or "custom", came from the society. But then, the ancient Greeks viewed religion and the responsibilties of a tutor in a different way that most moderns do. The classical Greek view leads, in the view of some more modern [[Christianity|Christian]] philosophers such as [[Margaret Visser]], to [[fatalism]] and [[revenge]], and to [[retributive justice]] in the [[law]]. Those who find these measures desirable thus have an alternative simple view.

== Defining the Simple ==

[[Jane Jacobs]] commented on two irreconcilable moral syndromes that could be said to arise from those views. [[George Lakoff]]'s theory of moral politics states that these arise from [[family]] role differences ultimately, with a [[moral code]] emphasizing the [[logos]] or "rule" of the father as being the source of the motivations of the political "right", and one emphasizing the more merciful moderns or mother-like view as being moral source for the "left".

If these views are at all valid, then, the two simplest theories tend to conflict, and their differences evolve into some full system of [[politics]] - which, as [[Bernard Crick]] put it, is "ethics carried out in public". His list of [[political virtues]] is an attempt to frame politics as a form of ethics, and ethics as a form of conflict resolution. However, the idea that moral principles are universal continues to persist, and most people probably believe that there is ethics independent of any politics.

Despite wide differences in the ways that people live, there are a few widely-accepted moral principles that cross most cultural boundaries. There is a tendency in most societies to support belief and safety over doubt and risk, to support [[justice|fairness]], [[consent]] and [[duty]] over [[dissent]], to support [[knowledge]] instead of [[ignorance]], to support trust, and [[honesty]] over [[lie|lying]] and to be against what the culture considers [[evil]]. It is actually not possible to use any of those words without moral judgements - possibly inherited from the dictionary ''- this is studied in [[meta-ethics]].''

== Right to Thrive ==

One nearly-universal moral principle is some form of the golden rule: "Act towards other people as you would want others to act towards you." Another principle is that a person can only be blamed or praised if they could choose to act or refuse to act. Another is that there seems to be something good about helping living things in general, or compassion or empathy.

Some principles seem to be based firmly in each living beings' makeup - e.g. a mammal would hardly argue against 'motherhood', although a reptile might if it never knew its mother. But the same things can lead us to difficult moral choices - while a sexually reproducing animal would not argue against 'beauty', it could recognize the unallayed pursuit of it as an excess likely to do great harm (say to mothers).

It is useful to distinguish "good from bad" in our actions just as we might distinguish "good from evil" morally in our thoughts. It's also useful to recognize that we use the word "right" to assert what we are due and to judge what is correct. To anything that's alive, it's "right" for it to live, that too is built into the body. If a creature is physically fit and capable of thriving in its environment, it takes a lot to overcome a preference to live:

== Social Judgement ==

Ethics begins when we try to use "right", "wrong", "good", "bad" and "evil" as labels in a sharable, predictable, way. Else it is just a moral judgement and not a basis for cooperation with other people in any due process or law.

Most surviving societies recognize certain acts that are usually bad for the society, such as lying, stealing, murder of people, adultery, and impiety (to God or Nature which in early societies was often the same). Mature societies recognize ecological and personal obligations that may contradict the social:

Therefore, etiquette (or "diplomacy" or "de-escalation") often requires that a painful truth be avoided, or even that a disruptive presence be silenced... many otherwise "civilized" societies jail, exile, or even execute individuals. ''See [[social contract]].''

This highlights the differences between individual and social responsibility - very often people rely on society or labor specialization to do things (like kill chickens or "terrorists") that they simply would not do for themselves. ''Whether such delegation of [[violence]] is desirable, and systems to do so, is studied in [[civics]].''

== Complexity Brings Doubt ==

As ethical theories become more specific, they can become more controversial. Unlike many other kinds of theories, they can be wrong simply because they cannot be applied fairly in practice! Very often, they are an excuse for continuing behavior felt to be immoral - whether behavior can ever be "known" to be immoral is another basic question.

Even the above version of the golden rule can be doubted, i.e. what if the "person" is not human, or has deliberately killed a human? Is it right to treat such a person like a human if they would be harmed by reciprocal treatment? What makes us decide that a person is worthy of respect in the first place? A body? Ape-like gestures? A corporate charter?

Philosophers have debated ethical theories for thousands of years, and many of the criticisms are complex, subtle and technical. Discussing such criticisms is beyond the scope of this article. Usually, [[ethics]] does not stand alone but alongside, and most often in relation to [[epistemology]] (the study of the nature of knowledge and how is it obtained) and [[metaphysics]] (the study of the fundamental nature of reality and the universe) to constitute "a [[philosophy]]". Theologians and some philosophers phrase these questions somewhat differently, in terms of [[cosmology]] (God in the universe), [[ontology]] (what exists), and morals. As morals are difficult or impossible to transfer out of context, one generally studies ethics case by case - or "fable by fable".

== Smaller is Simpler ==

All of this may introduce impractical complexities, though. So, consider again the "simplistic view" (I'm right you're wrong) of [[moral absolutism]] and two "simple views" (ethos as character, [[mores]] as rules VERSUS morals as aesthetics, ethics as dispute resolution). If you accept that the simple views (but not the simplistic view) can co-exist and both be right that is [[moral relativism]]. If you take the more "practical view" that we can't avoid [[politics]] (moderated but potentially violent conflict) between simple, simplistic, and more complex views, then you are neither an absolutist nor a relativist, and believe in some kind of moral [[cognition]].

Because of this inherent complexity of moral reasoning and too many academic "[[-ism|isms]]", it may be easier still to act in a simple ethical harmony with one's immediate social and environmental surroundings. People often agree on things in context of a small group, get them done, and live in harmony. The ideal size of a corporation has been stated as 70 people, and an ideal village no more than 120-150. At this scale, the ''simple view'' can be applied directly, and one need do no more than assess what moral concepts mean to the group. In other words, assess morality very informally and apply only informal sanctions or punishments with little or no need for force.

As groups and societies get larger, technology advances, and violence more likely, that shared moral cognition gets harder to manage. Some rigorous [[epistemology]] agreements like a [[moral code]] or standard of [[evidence]] must be applied. These, and [[politics|political]] standards like an [[vote|electoral process]], increase the potential for agreement and decrease the potential for violence, at the cost of added complexity and requirement to place trust in some referees (like judges or constitutional monarchs or a church or GodKing). At some point this becomes indistinguishable from the simplistic trust in authority, and, probably, the cycle of agreeing must begin all over again, in smaller units of trust.

See also: [[list of ethics topics]], [[business ethics]], [[ethical code]]

====References====
* Adapted from the Wikinfo article, "Simple view of ethics and morals" http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Simple_view_of_ethics_and_morals, used under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]]

Talk:Orcs

2005-04-24T15:22:36Z

Xiong: then kew

Well, I'm honored; but this does point up that we may have stumbled along a false path, mixing article and sources. I don't know the custom here, but elsewhere, we don't generally sign article text, only discussions. Of course I've only contributed to the problem.

Perhaps it would be best to move the signed contribs to talk, and refactor the article to exclude sigs. -- Not that I'm pressing; only a thought. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 10:22, 24 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Sparewheel

2005-04-24T06:02:28Z

Xiong:

Supporters of a troublesome user; "yes-men". This association is semi-permanent.

Cat's paw

2005-04-24T06:00:40Z

Xiong:

A pawn or dupe of another troublesome user is a [[Cat's paw|cat's paw]]. He is not generally a constant companion of the bad user, but may be played for a pawn only once or twice.

Straw man

2005-04-24T05:49:27Z

Xiong:

Usually not a human at all, a [[Straw man|straw man]] is a weak idea purposely set up in order to be destroyed. A user who is a straw man is, perhaps, a clueless [[Vandal|vandal]] -- it is not difficult to attack him and win.

Knight

2005-04-24T05:39:32Z

Xiong:

True [[Knight|knight]]s are very rare heroes; they fight the good fight, making war on troublesome users while themselves staying firmly within the bounds of community standards. It is extremely demanding work, and few have the necessary, special combination of skill, talent, grace, character, intelligence, and sheer perseverence to rise to this status.

Knights also spend considerable time and effort aiding the weak and doing good deeds. The most contemporary example is perhaps the figure of the [[Lone Ranger]].

It is perhaps noteworthy that no true knight ever accepts the label. [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|熊]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 00:39, 24 Apr 2005 (CDT)