Charter/General

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|— Xiong熊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.

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|— Xiong熊talk]] 16:14, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Numbered lists, how I love numbered lists. They're so manifestoish.

1. "Crisis" is not a small word. Point out what's going wrong specifically, and keep in mind that you'll have to make this relevant to Wikipedia's purpose: building an encyclopedia. I have seen multiple examples of your impressive oratory skills; now that you've used them to lure me in, care to point me to the beef?
2. I'll immediately admit I'm not everywhere, and I'm quite oblivious in general. So I probably have missed these cries for help, or more likely, I haven't interpreted them in the same overarching sense you did. A few diffs? And yes, I would agree that the community is always in convention, everywhere. It's a wiki.
3. There are a lot of proposals for just about anything, if that's what you mean, from where we should put our commas to how exactly the word "revert" should be defined. Specific examples relevant to this discussion would be good, especially since there's no point in not looking at what's already been done.
4. I do not question this. What is left is the question of whether they should. Group dynamics on Wikipedia are real, but Wikipedia itself isn't much like the real world.
5. I'll take your word for it—politics are not my forte, nor would I want them to be.

"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."

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 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 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?) JRM 18:11, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)