Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki policy discussion

message: The comments below reflect an earlier version of this page, before it was rewritten by Jimbo.
Oppose Get real. Do you really think you can stop all off-wiki policy discussion? jguk 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what the theory is, it just can't happen (ie "is not able to happen") in reality! jguk 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone's thought of smoke signals yet but the carrier pigeon network should be up soon. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, using an avian network for data transmission, I guess the only stablity risk they'd have to deal with would be bird flu. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the mailing list, it's an open tool - anyone can review contributions to it, thus making it a very wiki-esque system. There is certainly accountability when it comes to the mailing list, and thus, I do not feel that this is a major issue. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 04:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It seems to me that this was brought up years ago on the mailing lists talk page... but that discussion was abandoned after they failed to reach consensus... PaulC/T+ 21:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously discussed? 

message: Perhaps this proposal should not be called "Off-Wiki policy discussion considered harmful", but "Off-Wiki policy decisions considered harmful". Clearly it's not good to have very small numbers of people making major decisions on their own in secret (trying to hide it off-wiki), and I would suggest that this is already at the level of unwritten policy. Trying to stop all off-wiki discussion on the other hand is certainly not a good idea. The mailing lists and IRC channels are fast, efficient methods of discussion, and in my opinion the more discussion the better.
Editors should be encouraged to be more thoughtful about policy, and if having more avenues of communication helps this, then they should be promoted. --bainer (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off the mark? 

message: I've written extensively on this (ironically to the mailing list?). Thoughts on admin-only IRC channels and RC patrol. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The admin IRC channel 

message: See also meta:Talk:IRC channels for some older discussions on whether policy decisions should be banned on IRC. Angela. 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IRC policies

message: I think we need next to write Wikipedia:Editing Wikipedia considered harmful. Consider the ridiculous load it places on the servers and the need for a complicated piece of database software and a Byzantine server structure. Compare instead our mirror sites, which can just serve static HTML very fast and are frequently one-person sites. This will also make it easier for us to reap the cash bonanza of Google ads, like the mirrors do. It's an idea whose time has come - David Gerard 11:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great idea!

message: "The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia."
I consider this to be as true today as ever.
In general, I consider this entire policy proposal to be confused on several important points.--Jimbo Wales 03:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mailing lists are the primary driver of ultimate policy 

message: Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion considered essential expresses the original and true ideals of Wikipedia much more than this terrible misguided proposal.--Jimbo Wales 03:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have written a counterpoint 

message: This policy is clearly a statement of a concept which has been considered and rejected overwhelmingly and completely and continuously throughout the entire history of Wikipedia.  There is zero chance that it could ever be accepted because it is incoherent and wrong about just about every essential point.  There is something sensible to be said about off-wiki policy making, and some of the problems associated with it, of course.  But the idea that it is 'wrong' or somehow in violation of Wikipedia's principles is just massively confused.  --Jimbo Wales 03:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of course it is rejected 

message: This is a result of parsing the level of participation from the mailing list. The top five contributors to the mailing list made as many contributions as the bottom 144.  
I noted that January was approximately twice times the average size for 2005, so I went back to october, but the distribution is almost identical. I'll only reproduce the top few rows here:
 Rank Contributor          Number of posts   Overall %  Cumulative % 
 1    geni                 176               8%         8%
 2    Anthony DiPierro     155               7%         15%
 3    Alphax               152               7%         21%
 4    Tony Sidaway         148               6%         28%
 5    David Gerard         130               6%         33%
I'd welcome comments on this.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, #3 in October and January... probably #140 in between though. The great thing about email is that you can attend to it when you're offline - which for me is pretty often. Alphax τεχ 13:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also much easier for me to participate on when I'm at work, and generally a format much better suited to serious policy discussion. Wiki discussions force you to summarise your entire argument into a paragraph. Email lets you develop an argument over several paragraphs. I feel vaguely embarrassed to be in the top 10 though. Stevage 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, I'm #50? Surprising. I considered myself just a dabbler in the mailing list. :{ Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats on mailing list participation 

message: :Some lists (such as the Arbitrators' list) are inaccessible to the public altogether, which provides for a number of essential benefits. First, particular problems can be discussed on such lists in a frank and open way, without potentially accidentally casting aspersions on innocent users. Second, policy discussions can take place in an atmosphere of calm without the interruptions of those who do not understand the full context of the policies being discussed.
:Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is a common forum for policy discussions. At least one Wikipedia-related IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-admins) is restricted to administrators only. Also, according to Wikipedia:IRC channels, some channels have a "policy against public logging", which is in keeping with longstanding community traditions, and allows for a semi-private space for users to joke around, have honest and open discussions, without fear of every word spoken being permanently recorded.
Excellent, talk behind the regular ("logged") users' back. Since an encyclopedia loves definitions, I will add some:
:Clique - A small exclusive group of friends or associates.
:Cabal -  A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers.
Which one is #wikipedia-en-admins/arbitration list? how would I know, because I'm not allowed in. I'll assume the latter. --Anon84.x 20:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just don't pretend there is no.. 

message: ...because it strikes into the core of the problem. Just my thought. --Irpen 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If not the namespace problem, this could have been an article with [[WP:FAC]] potential...

message: Wikipedia is now vast.  It is so vast that, at any given moment, most people have no idea who you are.  When one is a new user, one does a few edits, gets a few kind words, responds, and gets a few more.  A few more edits, and one establishes a small group of known contacts.  A bit more, and a person is perhaps on WikiProject X or Y.  If one passes an RFA, there is even more good feedback.  A telling post or two here or there, a problem solved, and one can get to feel pretty famous.  In other words, all the users end up with circles of admirers and mentors, friends and supporters, and this is an alluring part of the experience, even if it is the "wikister" part.  All the same, we all go out into the deep waters of Wikipedia and get brought up short by someone saying, "Who the hell are you to express your opinion?"
It's natural, therefore, to have circles and to feel frustrated when what is plainly right to you and your circle is being viewed suspiciously, or even dismissively, by others.  There is a temptation to want to tell people how important you are, to demand that they respect you.  This is a temptation to sin and evil.
IRC, and even small projects, allow us to move the fence posts in, to define our spaces carefully, to set up our own Venn diagram where only those like us are communicating.  So long as we remember that "our" group, whether that is the IRC monkeys, the article authors, the taggers, the categorizers, or the checkusers or arbitrators, is the tiniest small part of the site, it's ok, but when our frustration at not getting the wider community to admire us or give in to our demands forces us to smaller and smaller and, most importantly, quieter and monologic areas, it is dangerous.  Any discussion or discussion area that is not available to the entire site cannot legislate, militate, or organize the wider site.  Any group cannot force its will on the rest.  Even arbitrators are arbitrators at the mutual consent of the wider site.  Anything done in secret is invalid as policy or guideline.
Geogre 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect. Though the phrase "IRC monkey" and the term "militate" might need changing. Also, the term wikister might be unclear to some (I'm not 100% sure what it means). Carcharoth 09:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  "IRC monkey" is the default name Mozilla/Firefox's Chatzilla gives you when you use it the first time, so I was trying to joke a bit.  However, to be more neutral, it should probably be "IRC talker."  "Wikister" is perhaps a private joke as well.  I have, elsewhere, ranted about how Wikipedia is divided between the encyclopedia and the wikister (the Friendster of Wiki) and that the two have been in tension since the project started.  "Social networking side" is more neutral.  The "militate" is the only one I still agree with, although you're free to change it to something less vehement, because I was trying to suggest that all groups of friends rally troops and charge into the field with their private associations, and that's the problem.  Talking is good, and sharing interests is good, but going off to a homogenized discussion area is a bad idea, whether it's Schoolwatch or that IRC channel, to create an army.  Geogre 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you want it, you can have it: 

message: This section is unsigned on purpose, use it as a sandbox, it's mostly culled from ANI and does not by default represent my views. - brenneman 02:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to #admins 

message: No Changes needed (this is my view. SirFozzie 03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Both Ways (I think one side is greater then another, but my feelings are well known at this point) SirFozzie 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm honestly not sure: The only thing I can think of is "off-boarding", ie on-Wiki decisions made off-wiki only. I think the best way to settle that would be a reminder that while discussions and sounding boards may take place off-wiki, that no decision should solely be made on off-wiki discussion. Let's not tie everything down in rules and regulations. SirFozzie 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is not to prevent off-wiki decision making. That is unavoidable. The key is to require the reasons for the decision to be provided on-wiki, and with more than a perfucntory "as discussed on IRC". Be prepared to repeat your IRC reasoning, or whatever reasoning you have, on-wiki. If challenged on-wiki, carry on the discussion on-wiki. Simple. Carcharoth 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is enough admins now in the channel that any "cabal" would be find it hard slogging to try anything in front of all of those (probably logging) users. Confirm that whole, unedited logs can be sent privately to the ArbCom for use in any RfC or RfAr if need be. I would specifically invite Giano and/or Geogre, under STRICT behaviour parole, to join the channel. It's time they put the money where their mouth is, and being inclusive... can't hurt to try, right? SirFozzie 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your notion of Giano and/or Geogre being "under STRICT behaviour parole" in order to be "invited" to join the channel is  insulting and absurd to those of us who have a clue about the kind of behaviour by actual chanops that has been going on there--that went entirely unchecked as late as Christmas and the New Year. And how is it that Geogre would in your estimation require an invitation at all? He's an admin. It's purely for reasons of principle that he doesn't frequent the admin channel.  Bishonen | talk 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The principle being that he'd much prefer to complain about IRC cabals? And give me a break, Bishonen. Every time Giano and Geogre open their mouths and say the kind of stuff like I copied above, they push the neutral voter further and further away from their side to the point where folks like me come into the discussion that say "Even if they were wronged, they still don't need to be such an annoyance about it."  SirFozzie 17:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These principles here. Bishonen | talk 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering the user's other statements that I have read(just one of which is copied above), I consider it nothing more then a smoke screen covering the fact that folks did something he didn't agree with and he wants them punished, and won't stop disrupting WP (yes, I use that phrase deliberately) until they're punished. Even if it's honest, I suggested Giano and Geogre get access to the channel for exactly that reason so they have their verifiability that they're looking for. SirFozzie 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please, if it makes you feel better, call me Dave or David. It's my (real) first name. It's rather amusing how you tell me if I have a problem with your edits to take it to DR, when I suggested above that if you and Giano have a problem with the "IRC gang", as Giano so quaintly put it, that you folks  open up a Dispute Resolution RfC or RfArb with the responsible parties. I'm glad that you recognize a good idea when you see it. SirFozzie 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works fine