Hello, I think we should think a bit out of the box here. If we are thinking about breaking the English Wikipedia apart, we might as well consider other "revolutionary" ideas. What we see here, in fact, is a slow but persistent collapse of Wikipedia's management system. This is hardly surprising. First of all, the community of editor is huge, and more complex mechanisms are needed to make things work. All attempts to create such mechanisms (e.g. Arbitration Committee, WikiProjects etc) have failed. Another problem is that the popularity of Wikipedia encourages people to use it manipulatively. The reaction to that is offering the admins more and more "weapons" which are too often used excessively and deter new editors from joining in.
WikiProjects have become "cabals", something Wikipedia wished to prevent from its very beginning. It would be wrong to encourage this trend by labeling users. We also have an obligation to assume good faith and to encourage collaborative work. Defining certain users as "trust-worthy" is counterproductive in this sense, and invites all kinds of manipulations we wouldn't like to see. As a first step, I think it would be useful to appoint an ombudsman to Wikipedia, either one to all of them or to each one. We can start with the English Wikipedia. This ombudsman will be identified by her/his real name and receive complaints from editors and from people who are subjects of articles. While this person can use help from other Wikipedians, it is important that there would be one person who would lead this work and be known, reachable and responsible to answer every complaint. The idea that anonymous admins, who act mainly upon their own personal judgment, can handle every problem, should be cast aside. It is also important that such ombudsman publish a public report about the complaints received in a certain period of time and how they were handled. It is also important that s/he would have the authority to intervene in the decisions of admins in certain cases, e.g. BLP. While I am quite sure about the problem, I am not so sure about the solution I'm suggesting here. Other solutions should be considered. And yet, we have to bear in mind the principle. We have to aim to equality among editors rather than create "classes", we have to encourage new editors rather than give too much power to veteran ones, we have to create an atmosphere that would encourage collaborative work. This is not the atmosphere on the English Wikipedia at this point in time. Dror K בתאריך 14/03/11 14:20, ציטוט SlimVirgin: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:35, FT2<ft2.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The other thing we thought was that there is benefit in recognizing editors >> whom the community agrees are competent, edit well sourced neutral good >> quality material, and act well, across the board. ... If there were some way >> to communally recognize such users (call >> them "proven editors" lacking a better term) it would have some immense >> advantages. ... >> >> The aim is to make recognition of this kind very widespread within the >> community and to actively coach and encourage uptake and success -- a >> recognition routinely won by many editors who have been active for over a >> year or so. > This is a good idea, but your first and second paragraphs contradict > themselves somewhat. If "proven editor" were a status people had to > strive for, and really didn't want to lose, it couldn't be something > awarded routinely to anyone active for over a year. We have lots of > people active for over a year who are very poor editors. They > currently have no reason to improve themselves, because so long as > they don't engage in behavioral problems their status continues > uninterrupted. > > If we could create a carrot -- "proven editor" or whatever we call it > -- that required the acquisition of editorial skills that were within > the reach of just about anyone who applied herself, it would give > people something to aim for other than adminship. But there would have > to be a real improvement in their editing, not just "you've shown that > you're not a complete idiot," otherwise it's patronizing and > worthless. > > Sarah > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
