Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Drini

You lost me (again)
I'm really sorry, but you (enwiki) lost me again. I'll elaborate about it.

For those who don't know about me, I was a english wikipedia claborator for several years, my actual first edition dates back to 2004, I was sysop, helped on mediation groups was arbcom clerk. But then at some point I decided to stay away from this wiki. Not from Wikipedia, but from the English Wikipedia.

Main reason was that community culture has became toxic and I certainly had a better use of my time and skills to help than waste it on stupid discussions that are so often the norm here.

So far I've been elected sysop on eight wikis, and have side-flags (checkuser, bureaucrat etc.) in about 5. I've been around for 5 years. I'm educated, holding a degree in mathematics teaching, a masters in mathematics and finishing a phd in math. And while my english isn't perfect I can certainly write a good article in from scratch in a couple of days. I've served during a whole year on the arbcom of a top 10 wikipedia and I regularly participate in many wikis. Those are my wikicredentials. This is also my 3rd year as a steward and that gave me the opportunity to know many different wikis and communities. And bad as it sounds me the one saying it I'm a respected user in many wikis.

There you have, my wikicredentials just for the sake of reference and partially answering those asking why I was invited.

Now, when I was invited to help in ''an advisory group, provisionally named the Advisory Council on Project Development, with members invited from across the breadth of Wikipedia. '' I said, why not? I have wikiexperience and hoped that maybe I could help a tiny bit to improve the english wikipedia again. The key part to me was "across the breadth of Wikipedia" since I think that the main problem of english wikipedia is now its self-centered community. English Wikipedia is the biggest wikipedia, yes, but definitely not the better and people from the outside may provide new points of view.

The invitation also said: The Council will act as an advisory body to the Arbitration Committee and to the community; will consider various issues facing the project and develop ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it; and will serve as a forum for the sharing of best practices among the different areas within the project

In other words, I understood I wouldn't be part of the day-to-day (as I still intend to stay away from this place) but when some thorny or controversial issue appeared, I would be asked for an opinion.

An opinion. Just that. The decisions are to be made by those elected from the community, not me. I only wanted to share my thoughts in case someone may find them helpful. I only wanted to give an outsider point of view. I only I never intended to become a part of the power structure or goverment or any of those things I've seen people like to mention. Frankly, I can serve and help Wikimedia in much better ways than wasting my time in inane RFCs and long discussions.

But then what I found? Bickering and stick poking at what could've be a refreshing source of ideas for many reasons, from the coffee table conspiracists (the arbcom and Jimbo want to impose more control!) questioning the very reason why this was made to the coffee table bureaucrats (you didn't follow the proper procedure, you're missing the stamp on your 3rd photocopy) talking about governances, scopes, elections, etc.

Now, before I finish explaining my motives, I want to comment on some statements and remarks I read on the only 3 pages I followed and that starting from this moment I'm removing from my RSS reader (so if anyone wants me to tell me something, user talk page will be the only way).

The RFC
I don't really know if the majority of (english) wikipedians want to be led by arbcom or not, but if not, that's good, I concurr arbcom shouldn't lead, it's not its goal. However fact is that arbcom has executive authority (they can impose sanctions) and while I believe arbcom authority can only stem from community and if the community rejects an arbcom decision it should be worthless and unvalid, I doubt that's a realistic scenario (for many reasons). So having people to comment on hairy issues is a very good thing. Specially if those voices come from users that don't feel bound or subject to the arbcom nor are interested in petty wikipolitics (I don't consider myself as I don't really do anything here anymore) and I don't really care if I get admonished from saying these things.

Fact: I think the whole arbcom thing has gone mayhem. And those who know me, know I'm critical of the godking role and many things that have become part of the english wikipedia culture (did you know that jimbo doesn't get that sort of worship on many wikis?). However critical I'm of the state of things, I'm still willing to be helpful and provide my point of view (even if it won't be considered). The last part of the comment is, frankly, FUD and a personal projection of prejudices.

Coffee table conspiracist. Hotline to the president? Change to the hierarchical model of management? What was ACPD supposed to manage? It was only there to give opinions. Wikipedia Politburo? Gee, what a great use of loaded words to get a point accross. "no proposals emanating from this body in its current state, regardless of their merit" of course, ideas even if they good, are dismissed when prejudices take precedence. And the comment is a perfect example of it. A good idea (a group of experienced users providing ideas in a public place) being dismissed due to the prejudices that this is some sort of politics power grab.

A group of power? The community elected the arbcom, and the community accepts it having authority. But I don't see how could the advisors could end up making the decisions (and not the elected arbcom).

As I said on other moment, even Wikimedia has a group of several (unelected) advisors. Yet no one is even hinting that the advisors group hold any authority or power within Wikimedia. Moreover, advisors aren't elected because advisors are there because of what the have to say, their experience. Advisors aren't elected because what's needed it's not popularity or agreement from the community. Advisors don't make "campaign promises" nor look for votes, that kills the very goal of an advisory group.

Here: Wikimedia's Advisory Board and tell me 1) where did community elect them 2) how have they become a power group.

So, again, more uninformed FUD.

Definitely an exercise on premature overreaction. But that's the norm on anything non-content related on the english wikipedia.

A reply to it:

Yes, because that's a core value: assume good faith. Wikipedia is on itself a big paradox, something that isn't supposed to work in theory. There are many things that could go wrong in wikipedia, yet they don't. And this is, like Bigtimepeace comment, another example of good ideas being dismissed due to prejudices (in this case against the arbcom).

No, Wikipedia is NOT broken. English Wikipedia isn't broken either. It has a really bad, irritating atitude. It has a nasty tendency to get people snipping at each other because of perceived threats and politics. But no, English Wikipedia is not broken. Community is certainly much worse than it was in the past. But community isn't broken yet either.

However, the main point that something has to be done to revert the decline is certainly true. And this advisors from everywhere was a nice different approach, except that the very sick community doesn't want to do anything different.

The once cherished values and principles that made possible the success wikipedia are no longer part of the prevailing culture. The "hey, let's try this, maybe it works", the "how about raising a barn here" (an old metaphor for those who don't know) or the "let's be bold and do something not written in the law" core wikiphilosophies are gone and replaced with "you're not supposed to do that, you overreached your limits", "that may work, but first you have to get it voted by community" and "this will become a power grab from the cabal looking to affirm itself", "hey, that may go wrong, let's not try it".

The ACPD
Now, moving to the ACPD itself. I'm kind of disappointed that things didn't go well, but the group itself didn't help much either.

From the invitation I understood the group was meant to provide more eyeballs and opinions to issues in order to arbcom make better decisions.

Yet I found that ACPD had no clue what ACPD was supposed to do. First thing was to move from the apparent goal of opinion givers to have an own agenda.

Advisory groups don't have agendas. They're to advise when requested, not to carry an agenda. I understand this was done to get things going, to start working. But really it was a bad idea. On the one hand, it led credibility to the claims of those crying wolf that ACPD was an attempt to grab power, to be a small cabal with objectives. On the other it showed that there was no clear goal with the group formation.

I'm sorry, but no. Advisory groups advise. They're not clerks to factor community discussions.

Advisory groups aren't elected. As I elaborated above, it destroys the benefits of an advisory group. Community has plenty of ways to get its voice heard, starting and foremost, electing the people who will take the decisions, the arbcom.

But elected advisors carry a commitment with the "platform" they get elected with. They no longer are group of people to share ideas that may sound herethical or unheard, but become an echo to what's been said before.

Also, elections would mean that only English Wikipedia users would get interested (frankly, enwiki elections are tiresome) and elected, so the whole "input from the breadth of wikipedia" is lost. The perspective is tainted, the collective thought is confined to the wikiculture of the english wikipedia (with its taboos, its principles and beliefs) resulting on the group of people just carrying the beliefs and ideas of different sectors of community.

Yes, perhaps the ArbCom wasn't the one who should have gotten the ball rolling, but someone had to. They did. Now let's move forward instead of throwing rocks.

My advise for this (or any future similar thinking group) is don't mix brainstorming with politics. Want to get community voice? that's great and should be done as well. Want freely flux of ideas opinions and new points of views? elections (specially english wikipedia kind of elections) will drive many of them away.

Thank you very much
This week has been a nice refresher to me. It reminded me why I left the english wikipedia.

I don't really have interest on keep watching silly threads full of snide remarks based on prejudices, bad faith and borderline trolling. I'm still available for anyone via the usual channels, and I'm still willing to give my opinion to anyone on any issue (as long as I have one) if it's helpful.

I can (and will) make wikimedia better in many ways but at this point english wikipedia is not even near top priority to me. Therefore I don't have the slightest interest to continue following these pages.

And I will tell you a secret: no one denies english wikipedia is the biggest wikipedia. But should you get outside your bubble you'll perhaps find that enwiki is the butt of many jokes and that many people think that others (for instance dewiki) are the true example to follow, precisely because of the stupid attitude this community has fostered and allowed.

So thank you very much for thinking of me (whoever did), but I move on to more productive things. Wish you (everybody) best of luck and I repeat: I'm available to share thoughts with anybody interested. Just don't make me waste my time as I did this week.

Leave you with a quote full of wikilove:

-- m:drini 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)