User talk:Friday/OOB

Transparency
I think transparency is only important in regard to items you use to justify your decision, not all items used in the consideration of your decision. A minor distinction, but an important one. ( H ) 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Suggesting that we not talk about Wikipedia policy at Wikimania, the Florida office, or when meeting face-to-face with other Wikipedians, isn't realistic.  Suggesting we stop advertising Wikimania is unrealistic.  Instead, we should refrain from justifying actions by saying "but this was decided at Wikimania" .  --Interiot 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The things you're mentioning are things specifically sponsored by the foundation, right? Is there some irc channel that's sponsored or endorsed by the foundation in some way?  Friday (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really the issue, if the foundation wants transparency in an area that is up to them. I think a better essay may be "Only use transparent sources as justification for on wiki decisions". ( H ) 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've believed for a while that off-wiki communications should not be offered as justification for on wiki actions. Campaigning for/against XfD/DRV/RfA/RfB, etc... discussions off wikipedia is another form of offence that has occurred.  Transparency of justification isn't a step towards the problem that campaigning creates, but I don't see how we can control such campaigning.  GRBerry 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for data
You write "Sometimes, someone will explain their on-wiki actions by asserting that their friends on IRC approved of the action before it was done." I know of one time this has happened, the royal fuckup yesterday. Can you provide another example? If this were outside of user space, I'd request a reference for that, it seems a bit vague. Thanks! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think some similar situation caused me to have this idea originally (it dates back a ways) but I don't remember specifics. This had been in project space at one time but I revived it for user space, mostly as a way to vent for now.  I also hoped that if people who feel they've been harmed by irc read this, it might give them some hope.  Friday (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Something to consider, there are far more people that feel they've been harmed by IRC (as relates to Wikipedia) than have actually been harmed. BDJ's block yesterday put him into that category legitimately, but the vast majority of "IRC injured me!" folks are operating under a misconception, so the hope you give them may be based on a false assumption.  Just an opinion. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. But, if we do what I'm suggesting here, the number of people who falsely believe irc bit them will go down.  We can't make it go away, but we can stop pretending it's somehow part of Wikipedia.  I'd be happy to never see it mentioned on-wiki again.  Friday (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Will it go down, or will it bolster their fantasies? "See, I TOLD you IRC was hurting people!  That essay PROVES it by existing!"  I still get passive-aggressive accusations of cabalism sometimes for something legit I did six months ago because some people _thought_ it was an "IRC conspiracy".  It happens, just be aware of how the essay will play.  I think your heart is in the right place, I just hope it doesn't ignite a round of baby-out-with-bathwater-ism. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of other ways for people to talk privately, like the internet, telephone, meetings. There will always be accusations of cabalism. ( H ) 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep- we have no choice on that matter. Where we do have a choice is on whether or not to encourage such things on-wiki. Friday (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd point out that IRC will never be fully decoupled from Wikipedia, since the "Wikipedia is down" message will probably always reference IRC, since "on-wiki" isn't available at that point, and the devs need a place to coordinate brining it back up.
 * Anyway, I just think that it's far more effective to put strong standards in place for what are acceptable ways to handle decisions made off-wiki, rather than thinking we can just ignore off-wiki conversations. --Interiot 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this
is that you can't stop people from talking to each other. - David Gerard 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. As I've said, the choice we do have is whether to encourage use of some particular off-wiki forum by having a page about it on Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An alternate choice is to give acceptable standards of behavior when communicating off-wiki, and how to appropriately handle situations where off-wiki conversations impact on-wiki activities. Particularly because that's something we need to deal with regardless of whether off-wiki communications are "officially recognized" or not.
 * By my count, IRC channels lists 146 different IRC channels associated with Wikipedia. To me, that indicates that a large number of people have a variety of reasons for using IRC, and that it would take a fair bit of work to convince everyone involved that the page should be removed.  --Interiot 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely in favor ot this
As someone who was royally f**cked over by IRC I'm strongly in favor of this. Right now I'm laying the ground work for a possible test case before arbcom regarding the use of secret evidence. But I would be even happier with a policy statement discouraging its use. jbolden1517Talk 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)