[WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing solutions?

Sun Jun 4 06:45:31 UTC 2006

Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some
good suggestions in it, I believe:

1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about
the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user
relations. Isn't it time to start talking about
solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent
versions of the same problem?

2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from
my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.

3. Existence of some rejected proposals cannot imply
that this one will follow the same path, can it? It is
early to make a decision at this stage before
discussing the proposal.

3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does not
devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not
attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not
propose radical changes but maybe a different look and
acceptable variations of the current
infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for
ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of
Wikigod(des)s.

4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
admins.

5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather than
irritate them.

6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from
possible problems before they arise (by constructing
study groups, etc., for example).

7. As discussed by some users, both community and
encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia. The
problems are caused by the fact that '''the bridges
between these two components are not efficient'''.
[[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to
strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of
these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention.

Regarding Wikiethics discussion:

If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and now
referring to that approval poll you are,
unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are new to
that discussion, I would recommend you to review the
comments carefully.

Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user,
who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the
approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I
then started another poll right after that to ask the
community if an approval poll is needed at that stage.
I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that
the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the
poll I started to ask what people think about the
timing of an approval poll vandalized many times: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=next&oldid=44384387
or its place suddenly became a problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44819924&oldid=44818149
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45015662&oldid=45014949
Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote
on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is
not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid
by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check
the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are
saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at
that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I
started,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a_poll_at_this_stage_Poll_31_April_2006
simply because it was not available to them. So the
numbers you reported does not reflect the case as is.

Best,

Resid

>From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform
>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000
>
>On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >
> >    I think one should not expect any action, in
> > general, from the people who are well fed by the
> > current structure which makes them feel superior,
make
> > any attempt towards a bit of change...
>
>There must be an awfully large number of people who
are content with
>the current structure, given that the general
approval poll on your
>Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are
evil, of course, and
>not binding, but that level of rejection is fairly
comprehensive, and
>came from all sectors of the community. I would
imagine that "OURS",
>if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would
receive a similar
>amount of opposition for similar reasons.
>
>There are dozens of similar proposals put up every
year. If any of
>them actually received support from the community,
they would be
>successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of
registered users - even if
>we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we could
overrule a true
>community movement.
>
>[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Poll_31_April_2006
>
>--
>Stephen Bain
>stephen.bain at gmail.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 