Debate:The mobocracy
(→Style policies) |
(→Areas where rules/regulations/laws are required) |
||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
===Sysoperisation=== | ===Sysoperisation=== | ||
*Yes. We already have too many. Minimum edit counts and a voting process would be the first things to implement, I think. {{User:Pink/sig15|Link}} 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT) | *Yes. We already have too many. Minimum edit counts and a voting process would be the first things to implement, I think. {{User:Pink/sig15|Link}} 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | * I've overdone it on this. A bit. {{User:SusanG/sig/sig}} 08:35, 6 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
===Bureaucratisation=== | ===Bureaucratisation=== | ||
*See above. {{User:Pink/sig15|Link}} 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT) | *See above. {{User:Pink/sig15|Link}} 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | *At the moment we seem to have sysops where other wikis have confirmed editors & bureaucrats (thanks for the spelling correction GK) where otherr wikis have sysops. | ||
===conflict resolution=== | ===conflict resolution=== | ||
*Yes! {{User:Pink/sig15|Link}} 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT) | *Yes! {{User:Pink/sig15|Link}} 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:35, 6 October 2008
Following discussion on Talk:Richard M. Nixon the usefulness of the mobocracy has been questioned.
There would seem to be two issues:
- Is the mobocracy (still) a good way to run the site.
- If not, is there anything better.--Bobbing up 05:47, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Contents |
Introduction
- I'm going to repeat my old comment, because I thought it sounded nice and dramatic. Plus it sums up my view very neatly:
- I'm not querying the fact that we currently use that system, I'm just gearing up to saying it's a stupid way of running things. It's inadequate; it gives those in authority no idea of their duties or limitations, and it breeds squabbles when the ideas of how people expect things to work somehow conflict with each other.
Pink(Future schismatic)
- I'm not querying the fact that we currently use that system, I'm just gearing up to saying it's a stupid way of running things. It's inadequate; it gives those in authority no idea of their duties or limitations, and it breeds squabbles when the ideas of how people expect things to work somehow conflict with each other.
- We are supposed to post here, aren't we?
Pink(Talk) 05:45, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Another objection
I would contend that whatever Rationalwiki:Community Standards may claim, RW is not a wp:mobocracy at all, unless we want to adopt our own little private definition of what that is. Rather, I view RW as functioning much like an early medieval tribal monarchy. (Stay with me, please).
- For one thing, we have rules - quite a lot of them, in fact. Many of these are written down, but the most important ones are not - they're customary laws, or as RW:CS puts it, "things are done around here the way they are done around here".
- Secondly, again unlike a mobocracy, we do have a permanent "leader", since Trent effectively wields unlimited power through his control of the server. But in the best tradition of an idealized tribal monarchy, he chooses not to use that power, working instead through the "advice and consent" of the population, i.e. the editors.
- Finally, it is clear that unlike a mobocracy where the individual members of the mob are effectively anonymous - one could even say that a mob is defined by the anonymity of its members - the RW editors are clearly not. There are certain editors with higher profiles than others, and some with more influence than others. This again is comparable with a tribal monarchy where members of the population or the "hird" enjoy different levels of status, depending on achievements, seniority or other factors.
--AKjeldsenCum dissensie 06:20, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
is the mobocracy a good way to run the site?
Yes
- Well, it's worked so far. I know that there are times when it's all a bit much but, in the eleven months I've been a RWian it's provided interesting debate and lots of lulz. After all, we may be a mob but we're a rational mob. Silver Sloth 05:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- It appears as though there are three methods of conflict resolution:
- Both participants discuss, and one or the other cedes the point. This can occur under any regime, but it's the ideal.
- Both participants continue to disagree. One of them isn't as persistent or as interested, and so they give in. The other person wins by default through longevity.
- Both participants disagree, and other people get involved. Votes are taken eventually and discussion continues. Usually a decision is reached.
While these processes can break down, this is usually just a failure of one of the parties to adhere to a spirit of rationality. Rationality calls for a reasoned discussion and then a majority vote, and that should be the appropriate approach to conflicts by all.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 06:03, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- I find that quite persuasive Tom - though it does depend on all of us behaving rationally.--Bobbing up 0606, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- I don't think "rationally" has to equal "calmly," but I guess that's beside the point. I don't think any of us can be counted on to behave either calmly or rationally in all cases. I mean, I like the current way of doing things, and I don't think things should change. However, Headless Chicken Mode would never occur if we could all maintain a cool head. That, said, I do have an honest question: What have been the lasting repercussions of an HCM event? I'm not sure, but it seems as if the desire to change the way we do things is directly related to avoiding and/or resolving HCM situations. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 07:01, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
No
- "The only way to describe how things are done around here is with the tautology that things are done around here the way they are done around here"... just isn't good enough. And it hasn't work so far. Lack of clear guidance for sysops has lead to headless chicken mode time and time again. Kip the Dip, anyone?
Pink(Tired) 06:13, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- This is working for what it is - a place for "lulz", a CP watch and the occasional wonderful article. But as far as "government", this is terribly inefficient. We haven't defined yet what "rational" means for us, we can't agree whether religions are rational, we can't agree on a consistent blocking (or placement into vandal group) policy, we haven't decided yet which articles belong to the Fun: namespace and which don't. And we haven't decided yet what we want to do with this wiki. But all these aside, this is a fun place to come full of interesting people. What more can we hope for? Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 06:38, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
No - but alternatives are worse
- I for one, react poorly to persons "having authority" - I tend to say "well, if that's what you wanna do, I'm going, 'bye!" There's one or two people on here that I would find it impossible to cede any authority to. If the creationists, for example, did gain a majority, I don't think that anyone would expect Trent (the final arbiter!) to allow any take over.
ContribsTalk 06:18, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Susan: But that's our current system. The point of having rules is to have something to refer to without it coming down to one person's authority, and the personal conflicts associated with them.
Pink(Mink) 06:25, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Susan, any community has people in authority. So does ours. The question is how you select those people and which limits are placed on them. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 06:59, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Susan: But that's our current system. The point of having rules is to have something to refer to without it coming down to one person's authority, and the personal conflicts associated with them.
- One potential problem that I see with the mobocracy is that any group of individuals with an agenda could join the site in large numbers, become members of the mobocracy, and turn it to their ends. Granted there are no signs of this actually happening, but it is a potential problem. I can think of no simple solution to the question though.--Bobbing up 06:11, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
If not, is there anything better?
Yes - suggestions
- Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? for Leader of Rationalwiki. (Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 06:09, 6 October 2008 (EDT))
- Cut the Lulz please: trying to be serious!
ContribsTalk 06:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Wasn't I serious in my suggestion? Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 06:34, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Cut the Lulz please: trying to be serious!
- Actual rules, like Wikipedia has -- ones that are designed to maintain the equilibrium of the site in the absence of any/all of the core members. Clear instructions for block times and vandal bin protocol. Limits on what can be allowed in each mainspace, rather than arguing about each article seperately. And more.
Pink(Still tired) 06:15, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Rules require enforcers who's gonna be the police?
ContribsTalk 06:21, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Everyone. It won't come down to someone dictating what is correct (which is what we do now, I might add).
Pink(ECs. ECs everywhere)
- So - it's still a mobocracy!
ContribsTalk 06:33, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- sigh
- 1. It wasn't a mobocracy to start with.
- 2. No. Now we're asserting out opinions as policy (see the fiasco that is the vote to block TK), whereas ideally we would have regulations written down to address these issues.
Pink(No no no no no no no no no no no!) 06:43, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- So - it's still a mobocracy!
- Everyone. It won't come down to someone dictating what is correct (which is what we do now, I might add).
- Rules require enforcers who's gonna be the police?
No - reasons
Maybe
- We’re the most successful of 4 rational wikis that I know of. We’re doing some things right. There may be ways of improving things further. Fundy Conservative Christians won’t take over this site unless fundy Conservative Christian evangelists get to Tmtoulouse. I don’t think that will happen. If that happens we’ll all move over to another wiki, perhaps found a new one. Proxima Centauri 06:13, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Areas where rules/regulations/laws are required
Blocking
- Absolutely. See RationalWiki_talk:Community_Standards/TK
Pink(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Vandal making
- We could do with a proper classification of a vandal. Not everyone who vandalises is one. And we need guidelines for when it's appropriate to let people out of the vandal group.
Pink(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Sysoperisation
- Yes. We already have too many. Minimum edit counts and a voting process would be the first things to implement, I think.
Pink(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- I've overdone it on this. A bit.
ContribsTalk 08:35, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Bureaucratisation
- See above.
Pink(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- At the moment we seem to have sysops where other wikis have confirmed editors & bureaucrats (thanks for the spelling correction GK) where otherr wikis have sysops.
conflict resolution
other?
- Don't let users (Susan?) mess with page format. Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 06:54, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Style policies
I think that there should be more discussion about issues of site style & protocol resulting in a few more guidelines as agreed by mob consensus. E.g. the Footnotes thing was changed with minimal discussion a few days ago; this debate seems to have started over a feud about categories. This is the stuff we need to talk about. It might look like petty small stuff but I think there would be fewer conflicts if there were some guidelines on it, & places to discuss changes or suggestions to the guidelines. But the systems we have for this at the moment aren't really working, or else nobody is taking enough interest in these things. E.g. I have a bugbear that there aren't enough redirects, which makes some things hard to find or link to, & results in a lot of duplicate articles. I tried to bring it up on RationalWiki:Serious Business which I guess is supposed to be like our Village Pump, but nobody has noticed it or bothered to respond. I think that more policy pages (not hard rules but guidelines for things like this) & discussions which the community takes interest in could improve these issues. weaseLOId
~ 07:51, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
- Redirects definitely should be discussed by the whole site. Some people tend to look upon them as convenient things to link to, when ideally they should never be linked to at all -- they're for people typing in the search engine.
- Also, I think your comment on Serious Business went unnoticed because few people check there, and it's not exactly in regular rotation on RC</sheepish>
Pink(I think WIGO is our Pump, sadly) 07:57, 6 October 2008 (EDT)