[WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations

Mon Jun 5 10:51:58 UTC 2006

>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
>Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:07:18 -0500
>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >    The admins are only part of the community now
and
> > will stay like that in the future, as far as I can
> > see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
> > believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
> > see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list
> > recently. I think it can be useful and can be
> > developed further. I tried to outline some
important
> > points which may reduce the conflicts between the
> > admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
> > is feasible?
>
>I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment.  Can
>you send it to me?

The proposal [[WP:OURS]] is below. Since I am
referring to another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
in this proposal, I copy-pasted the updated version of
the Wikiethics proposal below too for your
convenience. Right after the proposals, I provided
further explanations about them.

Please consider this as a sincere effort from a
relatively new user who lived through some hard times
because of some structural problems. I would like to
see the success of this project like many others,
liked the philosophy behind Wiki movement, and would
like to suggest some small changes for a better
environment at which Wikiediting has some written
ethical statements and standards and user rights and
admin privileges are well-balanced. That, I believe
will have some positive impact on Wikipedia. The
proposals are needed in my opinion if Wikipedia will
be a welcoming community and an encyclopedia at the
same time in the future while it is growing.

(The sections below are my earlier messages to some
people during the discussion on this list. I combined
the relevant ones together and cc'ing to the list if
anyone else missed them too.)

------------
[[WP:OURS]]
------------

[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
between sysops and users.

[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
RelationS) as well.]

1. '''Ethics and Standards'''

'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
(e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])

[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
controversial issue are very important to address. If
the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
disputes.]

[It is easier to write an article on a purely
technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience
and privileges then does not constitute a base for
neutralization of the article but -let me put it this
way- rather make them a target for
accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the
reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
of the controversial issues.]

[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote
properly.]

2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''

Based on the area of specialization and interest,
experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
work on the controversial articles categorized
as being related to their area of specialization and
can make recommendations on particular points. If
necessary, the study groups may also supervise
controversial articles until the dispute is resolved.

[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
form some study groups based on the area of
specialization of the users, say 'history of science',
etc., for example. When the disputes arise,
the users may ask the opinion of the related study
groups. The group may vote if necessary on the dispute
and comes up with a decision. It does not have to be a
final decision though, as usual. Many
violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be
diminished that way which may result in a more
friendly atmosphere between users and admins who feel
obligated to force the rules consciously.]

3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''

Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia.
The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required
to have a mentor. Users can change their
mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these
accounts will be managed as before.

[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
will provide a dynamic measure of their success. This
dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them
periodically. There is almost no accountability of
admins in a practical way. They should be accountable
to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount
importance.]

4. '''Limited block policy'''

A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
Anonym IP's will be managed as before.

Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
an admin.

[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not
be hard to convince an admin about the applicability
of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion
of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives
the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's
toe.]

[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally,
after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may
bring some reconciliations and peace
to the project.]

-------------------------
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
-------------------------

{{Proposed|[[WP:ETH]]}}
{{Policy in a nutshell|<CENTER>Be wise and
responsible...</CENTER>}}
{{Policylist}}
[[Image:Nuvola apps kwrite.png|80px|left]]

'''Wikiethics''' (Wikipedia editorial standards and
ethics) include the principles of [[ethical]]
standards related to editing articles on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a body of policies that presuppose the
existence of ethical standards that reflects the
common heritage of human [[literacy]] in both the
editors contributing, and the encyclopedia itself.
This document aims to outline their parameters and
scope. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently,
their place in the whole picture and their relation to
the Wiki ethics and standards are the main issues to
be addressed.

== Editorial Guidelines ==

It is helpful to have a productive editorial
discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when disputes
arise. The following sections provide important
guidelines for editing an article.

=== Article-based classifications ===

Owing to the diversity of backgrounds that the editors
come from, the interpretation of terms like
'offensive', 'censorship', 'pornography', 'minority',
'acceptability' etc. should always be decided on an
article by article basis, and by following
[[WP:CON|consensus]] based on the judgement of the
contributing editors in that particular article.
Generalizations do not help as it is almost impossible
to agree on the definitions of these particular terms
based on cultures, religions, life styles, etc. As a
quantitative measure to 'majority', 'supermajority'
and 'consensus', by [[Wiktionary:majority|majority]]
more than 50% of the contributing editors is meant, by
supermajority more than 75%, and the term
[[Wiktionary:consensus|consensus]] refer to 'no
significant disapproval'.

=== Collective consciousness ===

Collective consciousness can be explained as [[common
sense]] and a common understanding between the
contributing editors. This does not strictly exclude
ideas from minorities in a particular discussion. With
Wikipedia policies in mind, consensus among the
contributing editors should determine what is
'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in a particular
discussion.

=== The culture of compromise ===

[[Empathy]] and [[sincerity]] towards '[[the other]]'
during the discussion of articles by editors or third
parties is a powerful tool for [[compromise]].

=== Conflict resolution ===

It is generally possible to resolve a conflict by
taking all possible options available into the
consideration.

=== Images ===

If a picture is causing concerns in an article,
choosing visual or verbal descriptions based on the
judgment of the contributing editors might be helpful.
Changing the image with a more encyclopedic one,
lowering the picture in the article, providing a link
instead, or posting a warning template are other
options can be considered.

=== Polls ===

A [['straw poll']] on a particular argument or on part
of an article can be started at any time to see where
the community stands on that particular issue. It is
reasonable to think that an [['approval poll']],
however, needs to be started upon the completion of
the proposals based on a consensus.

=== Discussion pages ===

Editors are encouraged to seek whatever process is
most likely to result in consensus and build a better
encyclopedia using the existing guidelines. For
efficiency of the discussions on an article one
''might'' chose to copy the part from the article onto
the discussion page, express his/her ideas why s/he
thinks the part is not appropriate and give his/her
suggestion to fix the problem. This could help to get
more input from the other editors and consequently may
lead to a better article.

=== Anonymity ===

The editor's [[anonymity]] does not exempt them from a
responsibility to their personal ethics.

==Editorial standards==

High editorial standards would add to the reputation
of Wikipedia. Wikipedia recognizes the standards which
are shaped for centuries and currently practised in
the mainstream media, for example,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Harm_limitation_principle
Harm limitation principle], and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Taste.2C_decency_and_acceptability
Taste, decency and acceptability] listed in
[[Journalism ethics and standards]].
[[Ethic_of_reciprocity|Golden Rule]] ("not to inflict
harm") can be taken to be another example. Some of the
important editorial standards in Wikipedia are
discussed below.

=== Objectivity ===

A Wiki article should reflect judgment based on
observable phenomena, physical reality, and should be
uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
Absence of [[bias]] and lack of emotional involvement
are necessary. Separation between news, opinions, and
advertisements is also equally important. Competing
points of view need to be balanced and fairly
characterized in the articles.

=== Privacy ===

As Wikipedia becomes more popular and readership
increases, the potential impact of published material,
whether positive or negative, also magnifies.
Therefore, [[journalism ethics and standards]] become
relevant and editors are encouraged to consider when
editing wikipedia. Editors should also consider
notable individuals' rights to [[privacy]] and strive
to [[Journalism ethics and standards#Harm limitation
principle|limit unnecessary harm or discomfort]] to
them. These factors should be balanced against the
[[public interest]] in reporting information about
them. This might occasionally lead to an [[ethical
dilemma]], and requires greater effort on the part of
editors to discuss and deliberate when making
editorial decisions.

=== Responsibility ===

When making editorial decisions, each editor should
make some personal consideration of sensitivity
towards private individuals, children and juveniles,
victims of crime, and people who are currently
suffering grief and tragedy.

=== Public accountability ===

Wikipedia has an obligation towards it's readers. It
is not in Wikipedia editors' interest to act
irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is
contrary to public interest and in a fashion that
violates the trust of our donors and the public.
Upholding the public's trust is easier than re-gaining
it.

=== Censorship ===

[[Censorship]] in any form is not acceptable. 'No
censorship' means information/descriptions/expressions
should be included into or excluded from an article
for editorial reasons or ethical concerns only based
on the editorial consensus. Based on their judgment
concerning verifiability of information, information
content, and encyclopedic nature of the article,
Wikipedia editors can include or exclude some
information, expressions, and visual or verbal
descriptions into or from an article. A description
can be considered inappropriate for one article but it
might be appropriate for another. The article-based
classification gives that flexibility in
decision-making to the editors.

=== Offense ===

It is not in our interest to offend Wikipedians or
people who are using Wiki as a source of information.
It is generally possible to find a different version
of the same description which might be found less
offensive or not offensive at all, while expressing
the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can
help in that direction. Keeping the informative
materials stated objectively in the article is
necessary as a means to this end. No offense policy
restricts deliberate attacks to any religious values
or people, [[culture]]s, [[life style]]s, etc. It is
always good to be considerate regarding the concerns
raised by 'minorities' of particular discussions or
articles.

=== Pornography ===

[[Pornography]] can be described as visual or verbal
descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause
sexual excitement and should generally be avoided in
Wiki articles. The decision of what is appropriate and
what is pornographic is discussed on an article by
article basis to form a consensus.

=== Violence ===

Editors should be sensitive in portraying
[[violence]], that is aggression or rough unwarranted
force intended to cause physical or emotional harm on
another being, in Wikipedia articles. They should also
be sensitive about the rights of victims who are
subject to violence and also the possibility, if any,
that these portrayals may incite someone to harm
others.

=== Racism ===

[[Racism]] can be defined as the notion that people of
one race or creed are superior to another. In
Wikipedia articles, expressions that unnecessarily
portray prejudice, discrimination or intolerance of
people of a certain race or creed are to be avoided.
The expressions that intended to be divisive over
nationality, race, colour or creed and also that
glorify or incite someone to ethnic, racial hatred,
strife, and violence cannot be considered as
encyclopedic.

=== Propaganda ===

Wiki articles must not be written from the perspective
of supporting any political, social, or religious
movements. Editors should be careful about the
information uploaded by an organization or a
government to promote a policy, idea, or cause. It is
also advisable to be more conscious regarding
deceptive or distorted information that is
systematically spread.

=== Bias ===

Editors should be careful in regard to reflecting
their religious or spiritual beliefs as well as
ideology into the composition of the articles. It is
advised that the possibility of causing animosity
between spiritual beliefs, lifestyles or ideologies
should be carefully examined and avoided.

=== Sexism ===

[[Sexism]] can be defined as discriminatory or abusive
behavior towards someone based on their gender
identification. Expressions that unnecessarily promote
sexism in articles are not encyclopedic.

=== Language ===

Language used is often as important as the context.
[[Slang]] words, [[rudeness]], [[sarcasm]] are not
useful in articles and should be avoided.

== Policies relevant to ethics on Wikipedia ==

=== Policies ===

# [[Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions]]: Wikipedia
strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia.
Decisions which are made about articles or policies
should not be regarded as binding. That does not mean
you should ignore a consensual decision; it means that
everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later
date.
# [[Wikipedia:Civility]]: Being rude, insensitive or
petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working
well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and
be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.
Mediation is available if needed.
# [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]: The license Wikipedia uses
grants free access to our content in the same sense as
open source software is licensed freely.
# [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]: Do not stop other editors
from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking
good-faith edits to different articles, repeated
personal attacks or posting personal information.
# [[WP:IUP]]: Be very careful when uploading
copyrighted images, fully describe the images' sources
and copyright details on their description pages, and
try to make images as useful and reusable as possible.
# [[Wikipedia:Libel]]: It is Wikipedia policy to
delete libelous revisions from the page history. If
you believe you have been defamed, please contact the
help desk.
# [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]: All Wikipedia
articles must be written from a neutral point of
view, representing views fairly and without bias.
This includes reader-facing templates, categories and
portals.
# [[Wikipedia:No original research]]: Articles may not
contain any unpublished theories, data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis
or synthesis of published data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas.
# [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]: There is no
excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do
not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and
maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.
# [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is first and foremost an
online [[encyclopedia]], and ''as a means to that
end'', [[meta:The Wikipedia Community|an online
community]]. Please avoid the temptation to use
Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as
something it is not.
# [[WP:OFFICE]]: The Wikimedia Foundation receives an
increasingly large number of phone calls and emails
from people who are upset about various uploads on the
site. Sometimes these complaints are valid; more often
they are not. However, in most cases, even with the
invalid complaints, there is a short-term action which
can and should be taken as a courtesy in order to
soothe feelings and build a better encyclopedia in the
long run.
# [[WP:OWN]]: You agreed to allow others to modify
your work here. So let them.
# [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]: Do not
[[Wikipedia:Revert|revert]] any single page ''in whole
or in part'' more than three times in 24 hours. (Or
else an Administrator may [[Wikipedia:Blocking
policy|suspend your account]].)
# [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]: Vandalism is any addition,
deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate
attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
Vandalism is determined by the judgment of the
Wikipedia administrators.
# [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: Information on
Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints,
theories, and arguments may only be included in
articles if they have already been published by
[[WP:RS|reliable and reputable sources]]. Articles
should [[WP:CITE|cite these sources]] whenever
possible. Any un-sourced material may be challenged
and removed.

=== Guidelines ===

# [[Wikipedia:Accountability]]: As an informal
guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should
log in before making drastic changes to existing
articles.
# [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]: To assume good
faith is a fundamental principle on any Wiki project,
including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it
follows that we assume that most people who work on
the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
# [[WP:ATK]]: A Wikipedia article written for the sole
purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page.
# [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]: Wikipedia works by building
consensus. This is done through polite discussion and
negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus
regarding proper application of policies and
guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and
the Request for comment process are designed to assist
consensus-building when normal talk page communication
fails.
# [[Wikipedia:Criticism]]: [[Wikipedia]] must strive
for a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] in general and in regards
to [[criticism]] of article's topics.
# [[Wikipedia:Divisiveness]]: Divisiveness on
Wikipedia between members of the Wikipedia community
is against Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and
reason for existing because Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia and dividing Wikipedia contributors up
into seperated camps hinders rather than helps the
process of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic]]: Wikipedia is a
communal effort. To make it work, contributors must
think from a community perspective as well as a
personal one.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't_panic]]: It's easy to get caught
up in an emotionally fired up argument over something
that is so important that it must be fixed
immediately. Moral outrage over an issue is a common
source of panic. Before removing the offending text,
perform a sanity check to see if any actual policies
are being violated.
# [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]: Wikipedia's contributors
come from many different countries and cultures. We
have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds,
sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect
is the key to collaborating effectively in building an
encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]]: Neutral Point Of View.
An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that
has been written without showing a stand on the issue
at hand. This is especially important for the
encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in
which very often there is an abundance of differing
views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral
representation, the differing points of view are
presented as such, not as facts.
# [[WP:POINT]]: State your point on Wikipedia. Do not
attempt to make an example out of anyone/anything to
prove the point.
# [[Wikipedia:Profanity]]: Words and images that would
be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by
typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only
if their omission would cause the article to be less
informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally
suitable alternatives are available. Including
information about offensive material is part of
Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is
not.
# [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]: If you can provide
useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but
bear in mind that edits for which no reliable
references are provided may be deleted by any editor.
# [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]: Sign
all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing
<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to be accountable and to help
others understand the conversation.
# [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]: When writing on
a Wikipedia talk page, certain methods of
communication are counterproductive, while others help
make progress smoother. This guideline is designed to
help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively.
# [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]: Vanity information
is considered to be any information that was placed in
any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent
conflict of interest, meaning any material that
presents the appearance of being intended to in any
way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or
one of the close family members or associates of the
author.

== See also ==

# [[Journalism ethics and standards]]

---------------------
Further Explanations
---------------------

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. 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. 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:

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 reported on the talk page does not reflect the
case as is.

Best,

Resid

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