In order to promote the upcoming DC Meetup, Greg Maxwell developed some spiffy Javascript code that will display a dismissable notice only for editors who are located within a specific geographic region (based on IP geolocation). This was added (by Kat Walsh) to the English Wikipedia "common.js" file, and promptly removed (by Jeffrey O. Gustafson) citing "complaints on IRC". The subsequent discussion is a combination of Chicken-Littlish "it might possibly break so let's not use it", clear anti-Foundation sentiment (which is based entirely because it was implemented by Kat Walsh, who happens to be a Board member), and bare power gaming by people who seem to feel that "consensus" means "you have to get my explicit permission before doing anything I might not approve of". None of the objections is even remotely based on reality; all of them are I-don't-like-it objections masquerading as technical or process based reasons which don't hold up on examination.
The problem that this episode illustrates is the way "consensus" has evolved on the English Wikipedia to effectively create an extremely reactionary environment where making any sort of change is really really hard. You have basically two choices: you can either spend about a month going around identifying all the people who might object to your change and convincing them that it's not going to cause the death of the wiki, and then implement it (only to have someone who you didn't talk to object and revert it), or you can change it then spend about a month arguing with all the people who objected to it in a discussion that you will probably eventually lose. Basically, there's a lot of people with admin bits who are convinced that there's no consensus unless they were personally consulted. Some of them will revert even changes they otherwise agree with simply because "process wasn't followed". The effect of these people is to make Wikipedia extremely reactionary.
Fundamentally, the mistake here is in taking "consensus" as the governing principle for writing articles (an activity that rarely involves more than a half dozen editors) and applying it as the governing principle for operating the entire project. Consensus doesn't scale well. As is noted in Robert's Rules, "a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself". This sort of tyranny seems to have become quite well established in the English Wikipedia.
Update: In response to the commenter who alleges that "the notice slowed down the site for people seeing the message": No, it didn't. It is specifically designed not to do so. Anybody who is experiencing such problems has defective JavaScript in their own custom JavaScript (which is a very common problem, to be sure). Greg's already looked into the one such claim that reached him, and that was exactly the problem. And the commenter is exhibiting the same sort of juvenile powertripping that causes so much trouble. Note that the objection isn't that the notice is bad; rather, the objection is that "it was concocted off-wiki". Why does that matter? What should matter is whether or not it's a good idea. Complaining about its origin is is focusing on process instead of product. Wikipedia is not Nomic; if you want to play process games, find somewhere else to do it.
The problem that this episode illustrates is the way "consensus" has evolved on the English Wikipedia to effectively create an extremely reactionary environment where making any sort of change is really really hard. You have basically two choices: you can either spend about a month going around identifying all the people who might object to your change and convincing them that it's not going to cause the death of the wiki, and then implement it (only to have someone who you didn't talk to object and revert it), or you can change it then spend about a month arguing with all the people who objected to it in a discussion that you will probably eventually lose. Basically, there's a lot of people with admin bits who are convinced that there's no consensus unless they were personally consulted. Some of them will revert even changes they otherwise agree with simply because "process wasn't followed". The effect of these people is to make Wikipedia extremely reactionary.
Fundamentally, the mistake here is in taking "consensus" as the governing principle for writing articles (an activity that rarely involves more than a half dozen editors) and applying it as the governing principle for operating the entire project. Consensus doesn't scale well. As is noted in Robert's Rules, "a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself". This sort of tyranny seems to have become quite well established in the English Wikipedia.
Update: In response to the commenter who alleges that "the notice slowed down the site for people seeing the message": No, it didn't. It is specifically designed not to do so. Anybody who is experiencing such problems has defective JavaScript in their own custom JavaScript (which is a very common problem, to be sure). Greg's already looked into the one such claim that reached him, and that was exactly the problem. And the commenter is exhibiting the same sort of juvenile powertripping that causes so much trouble. Note that the objection isn't that the notice is bad; rather, the objection is that "it was concocted off-wiki". Why does that matter? What should matter is whether or not it's a good idea. Complaining about its origin is is focusing on process instead of product. Wikipedia is not Nomic; if you want to play process games, find somewhere else to do it.
KW is great. Usually when someone is capable of making bold actions, they also happen to be a jerk. But every once in a while you find a kind and mature person (at least publicly) who is willing to make bold moves and not fight like a child over it afterwards.
ReplyDeleteKat also made a difference with fair-use on the main page. To be fair though, others had been working on this quietly for years, so the field had been prepared.
With the watchlist thing, the way to do that is to get some of the DC people to ask for it first, and explain how the code doesn't violate anyone's privacy. Then the guy removing it can be yelled at by the people who asked for it.
Just look at the talk page - people complained about 1) not discussing this first and for being concocted off-wiki. and 2) it slowed down the site for people seeing the message. Fair complaints? I think so. Then Gmaxwell swoops in and has a temper tantrum. No wonder it didn't go anywhere, despite being a great idea.
Lets be real: No one raised a material issue. Some handwaving was performed about it causing problems, but that turned out to be inaccurate speculation.
ReplyDeleteIf someone raised an actual concern, privacy related or otherwise, I'd be glad to answer it.. but that simply wasn't what happened. The first mention of privacy I've seen is here. It's a pretty easy subject to discuss in this context... pretty easy when it isn't just being invoked for the sake of excusing an unjustified revert.
I think Kelly's analysis is spot on: People were pissed because, god forbid, a change was made without the personal approval of every single person with the ability to revert.
Calling my response a temper tantrum is, in my view of course, beyond unfair. Like many others I volunteer substantial amount of time helping these projects, several hours in this case, I think I'm deserved a basic level of respect as a result... such as making an effort to articulate an actual complaint rather than removing my work on the basis of hand-waving alone. ... Of course, I'm not the only victim of this behavior on English, which is why I called it a social ill.
It seems that you agree that the feature has potential usefulness... I'm glad to hear that, but if the rest of the 'community' is going to treat contributors like rubbish your encouragement is of marginal value.
I recognize that I'm not the most patent or tolerant person around. Certainly a degree of tolerance is needed and justified on the projects, but I think I meet those requirements.
Frankly I think that English Wikipedia has a good base of jerks who ruin it for everyone... People more concerned with demonstrating their personal power than furthering the long term mission. I'm only still around because I hope these people will either grow up or go away... and I don't make any bones about it. Feel free to ignore me if you find my abject disgust distasteful. .. and my negative feelings aren't just reserved for the Enwiki community, but thats the subject for another rant.
Hypocrisy 1) Frankly I think that English Wikipedia has a good base of jerks who ruin it for everyone...
ReplyDeleteGregory, you are one of the most consistent jerks on the entire project (to anyone who doesn't happen to be one of your little buddies). I first noticed this a couple of years ago when you and Cyde were viciously harassing members of a particular religion. (look in Cyde's block log for a self block that denotes this episode).
Hypocrisy 2)Like many others I volunteer substantial amount of time helping these projects, several hours in this case, I think I'm deserved a basic level of respect as a result...
And yet you consistently disrespect other hard working wikipedians (generally people who aren't your little buddies).
Hypocrisy 3) Frankly I think that English Wikipedia has a good base of ... People more concerned with demonstrating their personal power than furthering the long term mission.
Power, hmmmm. Gregory, you went batshit insane spaming English voters to vote in this election, and as a response to criticism offered to help other languages once you knew it was too late. Could you perhaps be interested in, gasp, power for your little buddy clan.
"and as a response to criticism offered to help other languages once you knew it was too late"
ReplyDeleteToo late? Thats rubbish. Though I shouldn't expect better research from someone so ashamed of his own words that he won't attach his name to it.
What Gregory should have said:"Yes, we should have discussed it on-wiki first. Sorry everyone."
Exactly what is there to discuss? No one has raised an actual problem with it yet...
Do you 'discuss on wiki' before you make any change to any page? One might wonder how you get anything accomplished at all.
Do you 'discuss on wiki' before you make any change to any page?
ReplyDelete1) If it's a wiki-wide sitenotice page I sure as hell would. How hard is it to discuss or leave a note of explanation first?
2) How hard is it to discuss respectfully after a revert, and then try again, instead of stomping off in a huff?
Quit acting like a spoiled six year old, Greg.
"If it's a wiki-wide sitenotice page I sure as hell would. How hard is it to discuss or leave a note of explanation first?"
ReplyDeleteYet.. it's not, it's a message on a single page, Special:Watchlist. Furthermore, people usually don't discuss most changes to actual sitewide changes in advance. ... Perhaps they should more often, but when a change is actually uncontroversial (as this one is, apparently) to demand a prolonged discussion in advance is simply a waste of everyone's time.
As it stands the notice is restored and nothing has been changed... except a lot of negative feelings have been created all around for no good reason.
"How hard is it to discuss respectfully after a revert, and then try again, instead of stomping off in a huff?"
I didn't stomp off in a huff, I stuck around to answer questions, even though I had to prompt people there to bother to ask some... Since as Kelly points out the facts of the event were largely irrelevant to most of the people who were happy with the removal.
You might consider me a "spoiled six year old" because I won't hide the fact that I think English Wikipedia is socially ill.... Thats your call, but I must again point out that I can't give much credibility to someone who won't even back up their own words by attaching their name to them.
Gregory: "Frankly I think that English Wikipedia has a good base of jerks who ruin it for everyone... People more concerned with demonstrating their personal power than furthering the long term mission."
ReplyDeleteI think your comment points out something important that Wikipedia should address. Wikipedia should be a place where the cream rises to the top.
Excellent comment Nanabozho. Gregory stops by and make a couple of edits every few months and thinks he owns the place.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, most hardworking editors who create content every day have no real chance of rising to the top.
Commented:
ReplyDeletehttp://wikilaw.blogspot.com/2007/07/some-notes-from-other-blogs.html
What I forgot to mention into my post, was that those most critical of Gmaxwell are, unsurprisingly, loathe to reveal their own identities. If one has the balls to call another a hypocrite, one should have the balls to stand behind their own statements, lest they themselves become the hypocrites.
oops, link in above comment didn't go through.
ReplyDelete. If one has the balls to call another a hypocrite, one should have the balls to stand behind their own statements, lest they themselves become the hypocrites.
ReplyDeleteSWATJester, you aren't very bright, are you? Someone posting anonymously isn't a hypocrite unless they dam others for posting anonymously. Please look up the word hypocrite.
Kelly can turn off anonymous posting with a mouse click but she chooses not to. Thankyou Kelly for letting everyone have their say, even the downtrodden and meek.
Posting anonymously is understandable if the poster fears retribution. Nevertheless, it is still a form of engagement that allows all sides to have a say, to hear each other and defend themselves. It's not like trashing a person behind there back. Kelly, Greg, you guys would never trash people behind their backs in private discussions, would you?
"it slowed down the site for people seeing the message. Fair complaints? I think so. Then Gmaxwell swoops in and has a temper tantrum. No wonder it didn't go anywhere, despite being a great idea."
ReplyDeleteHow did it slow down the site? The bandwith load transfer increase would only be a low number of bites. The small JS would be quickly executed with little memory. That sounds like bull to me, just a pseudo-technical defense for "didn't follow policy".
"Yet.. it's not, it's a message on a single page, Special:Watchlist."
ReplyDeleteThis is an inconvenient fact. It is henceforth everyone's imperative to ignore it.
I wonder when my unilateral edit as described here will be noticed. WITHOUT EVEN A VOTE! Fortunately, it was discussed on IRC^Wthe ComCom list. (Guillom suggested the change as that's how they have it on fr:wp so people won't think it's a contact link for the subject of the page.)
ReplyDelete@ anon: Regarding Posting anonymously is understandable if the poster fears retribution.: Fearing what retribution....internet flaming? Wow...the big bad men are going to come get you because you expressed an opinion on the internets. It's exactly hypocritical. You want to call someone an idiot, but don't want anyone to know who you are for doing that? For what, what's he going to do? You obviously don't know Greg Maxwell very well.
ReplyDeleteKelly allows anon comments and that's fine, spurs discussion etc. But @anon, don't think highly of yourself because you can insult someone behind the veil of anonymity. If you had the convictions to stand by your negative commentary......well you wouldn't seem like such a douchebag.
Oh dear SWATJester, I suppose I'm wasting my breath, but here it goes anyway.
ReplyDelete1) for the second time, please go look up the word hypocrite. I understand you are interested in law. Well, language is your tool so maybe you should learn to use it.
2) I never called Greg an idiot. In fact I complimented his "great idea" and called him a childish hypocrite. Sometimes a thing just needs to be said.
3) Kelly allows anon comments and that's fine, spurs discussion,
BINGO
4) SWATJester, would you apply this same condemnation to Kelly if any of her "army of sockpuppets", as she put it in a previous post, ever made a negative comment?
The anonymous before me is correct that SWATJester's use of the word "hypocrite" doesn't make sense in this context. No anonymous member is pretending to be better that being anonymous.
ReplyDelete