User:Ludwigs2/organizing

I'm inviting a few people to this discussion (Anthony, Olive, Jayen, and Hans, for starters), but feel free to invite anyone else you like. just let me know whom, because I will be active about deleting posts from people I haven't invited (they can comment on the talk page of they like).

I've played most of the cards available within the system to try to rationalize things here, with very little effect. As a single editor there's no way to get any purchase on the problem - there are simply no effective controls over massed emotional reasoning on project, and any single editor (no matter what) is going to get swept under by a tide of character assassination. Since not even ArbCom seems willing to address this, it appears more high-powered tactics are called for.

I think it's time to organize.

What I'd like to do is create an on-project union (a cabal, yes, but an open one) of editors who are tired of policy literalism, mob attacks, and irrationalism of all sorts on project. It would have its own noticeboard, a set of rational rules for its operation, it would decide what issues it wanted to get involved in and how to approach them, and then get its members to act as a group to negate mob tactics. In essence, it will impose proper reasoning style on talk pages by sheer weight of numbers, so that discussions can proceed without the nonsense.

I've been avoiding getting this political because this kind of thing is likely to raise a lot of consternation. That's not really a concern for me any more (how much worse can it get for me?) but it would need a core group of people who are willing to commit themselves to the ideal of a rational Wikipedia - this depends on having sufficient numbers of people dedicated to reason that it can overwhelm a wide assortment of mob-politics tactics. if any of you don't want to participate please so indicate, but even if you don't want to participate, please give your thoughts on how we might make it work.

Take this as an exploratory discussion. Ultimately, though, the goal will be to create a rational political system on project that will put an end to all the mind-numbing nonsense. -- Ludwigs 2 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about block voting, count me out. But I'm in if you're talking about an invite-only civil discussion club. I don't see the need for a formal structure, yet. Though we might host formal debates. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there are many editors who would like a place where discussion could be carried on in peace. Wikipedia does have some serious issues to deal with, and perhaps solutions could come from its editors. I feel the same about any kind of block vote  in mainspace. But there are solutions to Wikipedia's ills and I'm sure its editors as a group can discover what they are.(olive (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC))


 * What I'm talking about is two things:
 * a microcosm of actual, viable consensus discussion without all the personalization, side-tracking, and obstructionism that goes on in article space.
 * an agreement to coordinate, not for block-votes or anything like that, but just to quell mob actions before they begin.
 * So, look objectively at what happened at Muhammad for a moment.  granting the long-standing conflict on the page: I stepped up to address the issue and more or less instantly had a half-dozen editors trying to block any conversation, much less any action.  by the time people who supported something like my side of the debate showed up (Jayen, Anthony, Hans, etc) the discussion had already turned into a mobbing, with multiple editors calling me tendentious and refusing to discuss anything except how to get me sanctioned (not to mention that they'd already badgered me into getting hot under the collar).  at that point, even the best efforts of others were not going to salvage the discussion.


 * Now, consider this alternative: I step up to address the issue on Muhammad, and see the mob forming (that would have been by my third post to the page). at that point the following happens:
 * I present the case for people in this microcosm.
 * it gets discussed using some proper procedures, and we collectively decide whether to get involved as a group
 * If we decide we will get involved, we decide what goals we're going to reach for
 * we go over as a group and argue for those goals.
 * This does a number of positive things:
 * it prevents the mob from initially isolating any individual and beating on him/her. if necessary, the original editor can step back and leave the discussion to the rest of the group
 * it prevents the mob from playing the "we have consensus" game; when confronted with an equal sized group, they can't make that claim.
 * it gives all of us moral support and the opportunity for mutual moderation - we can pull each other aside and point out when one of us is getting too hyped up.
 * and most importantly, perhaps, it gives us an effective capacity for squelching the character assassination routine - anyone who works that angle too hard might find him/herself drawn into wikiquette or RFC/U by the entire group
 * The idea is age-old balance-of-power politics, used in this case to neutralize the many-against-one mobbing dynamic. don't give them a target they can single out, constrain them to discuss the issues rationally and impersonally, help each other avoid making stupid mistakes that can be capitalized on through emotional politics, and keep each other focused on a clearly defined set of goals.  it's one of the few ways to create a rational, structured discussion under conditions like those currently present on project.


 * That's the outline of it. There are details to be ironed out.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, maybe, what you hope to achieve could be achieved just by inviting others to a conversation on this page and deleting any uninvited comments. Who makes what post on other pages, as a result of this conversation, could be decided, if decided, ad hoc. Discussing an issue in a civil manner with hand picked people who share a common view, might help forward that view in any debate. The key element would be, in my opinion, hand-picking. My main inclusion criterion would be the ability to engage in rational argument and (possibly) a demonstrated ability to change one's mind.
 * I don't see the value in forming a party or union. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like this idea at all. A major part of the problem is that people are thinking in terms of informal factions and parties. We are not going to solve this problem by creating a formal group like what you are describing.

And this negative reaction is not just going to be restricted to me. Such groups are generally seen very sceptically in Wikipedia, and when they are invitation only they are positively rejected by the community. WP:Esperanza was before my time here, but I think it had similar problems, and it would certainly come up as precedent. Other things that come to mind are WP:Advisory Council on Project Development and User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 3. Hans Adler 09:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with Hans, and that even the act of deleting comments you don't like will create a heated environment. There are so many Wikipedia boundaries that actively prohibit any kind of group collaborations like this. I know there are many who wold like a peaceful environment in which to discuss ideas, but I don't see any place on Wikipedia that allows restricting of editor input, even user pages. You could create a discussion page, pose questions and ask for civil behaviour, beyond that,  I 'm not sure what else is possible . I felt your sheriff project had potential. Any thought on picking that up again?(olive (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I very clearly understand your sense of isolation, and I am in no way making light of that. I don't know what the solution is. (olive (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC))


 * responding to everyone…


 * I understand the resistance you're all expressing. You're intelligent liberal idealists, and what I'm suggesting is not going to sound precisely kosher to liberal idealists.  But (speaking from my discipline) this is part of the problem.  Wikipedia was conceived with a very high-minded set of idealized liberal principles but with none of the structures, conventions or institutions that are absolutely essential for maintaining those principles.  What happens to me (and I suspect has happened to each of you, more than once), is that I step onto a page expecting reasonable discussion between thoughtful, independent equals (pure liberal consensus model) and find myself confronted with editors working conjointly under a simplified competitive ruleset (a hegemonic dissensus model).  Hegemonic dissensus is a perfectly valid political model - most modern republics use some form (the US being the poster-child for it) - it's just not a very pretty political model.  Very tumultuous; very dissatisfying to the idealist.


 * However, the mistake that idealists make everywhere is in assuming that reason will prevail if they just stick to their ideals. It won't.  Not because the hegemonic-minded people don't appreciate the ideal or respect reason (generally they do), but because they don't understand the ideal.  They believe they are following proper principles of liberalism because they can't see the ideal in its fullness, and when you try to show them the ideal in its fullness they get confused and think you're trying to trick them, and then they get angry.  This is why I say that some structures and institutions are absolutely essential: they are needed as guides for people who don't currently grok the ideals in the whole; such structures are something to hold on to while people learn.


 * The fact of the matter is that until Wikipedia develops some decent formal structures, it is going to be a hegemonic system dominated piecewise by various informal factions. There is no other credible outcome (short of a decent into one form or another of autocratic rule).  If we take that as a given, than the most straight-forward solution (if not the most ideologically pleasing one) is the Madisonian solution: pit factions against each other so that they are forced to develop an inclusive hegemony.  If we make an open faction dedicated to asserting rational discourse on certain troubled pages, the response to that (among a whole lot of yelling and screaming and hair-pulling) will be that a number of currently hidden informal factions will become open factions in their own right.  Open factions confronting each other are far less prone to rampant personal attacks (a group will jump an individual with glee, but will show circumspection towards other groups), and the politics of hegemony will shift from eliminating individual opponents to incorporating opposing groups.  Ultimately (as always happens in open hegemonic politics) there will be a concerted effort from all sides to construct rational rules of order, because factional competition requires rational rules.


 * The unfortunate fact of the matter is that anyone who clings to a pure liberal consensus model on Wikipedia is headed straight towards an indef ban. It's not a functional stance to take at this stage of the project's development, because taking that stance merely makes one a target.  If we want to eventually achieve something akin to an idealistic liberal consensus model here then we're going to have to work with the hegemonic political system that we're given, and that means working together.


 * I don't like this any more than you do, but I spent a lot of time and effort trying to get people to abandon hegemonic tactics in favor of liberal consensus discussion, and got less than nowhere with it. Gotta face the facts...  -- Ludwigs 2  18:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * P.s. @Olive: Don't mistake this for an emotional state. I'm not prone to feelings of isolation (I would, and have, happily stood up to the entire community when I thought they were in the wrong).  This is a matter of political reality.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As usual, you are being too direct, too blunt, and too extreme. You are not being quite as extreme as Peter Damian was with his proposed union of established editors, but ultimately your proposal shares many problems with Peter's. "WikiProject English" almost got it right, but the nature of the 'project' as a political faction was too thinly disguised.
 * I don't know if there are any successful examples of what you have in mind, because success means they are invisible. So I will make one up. For the sake of the argument, let's suppose you are doing public relations for the Pentagon, and your task is to 'correct' a perceived pacifist and internationalist bias of Wikipedia. To do so, you can give instructions to a number of officers.
 * It turns out that the right kind of instructions to give in this context would be to gather around a large innocuous topic related to the military and focus exclusively on neutrally improving Wikipedia's coverage of it. The best approach would probably be to invent WP:MILHIST, to ensure that it has a steady output of reasonably good content, that it produces the occasional featured article, and that it has a blameless reputation. Sooner or later its key members would become very influential and maybe even reach Arbcom.
 * I gave similar advice to Peter Damian. Around the time of his failed initiative and in reaction to it, someone created WP:CN, which was fully in keeping with the wiki spirit and so almost completely uncontroversial. Ultimately it failed due to lack of activity, though. Hans Adler 22:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, actually. I wasn't referring to an emotional state. I have an interest in collaborative communities, how they form and operate, and I've been interested in your views on Wikipedia's ills, and its growth for a fair amount of time. (olive (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC))