Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Balloonman/Questions

Questions from Sven Manguard
I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard  Talk
 * 1) What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
 * A. There are two major threats to the long term survivability of Wikipedia. First, we are a consensusology, this means that issues have to get support of a majority of users in order to affect change.  Obtaining this consensus is almost impossible.  How many times have we talked about RfA reform, but nothing happens?  The second major issue threatening WP are BLP violations.  While all mistakes on Wikipedia are bad, the BLP issues are the one's that garner major attention.
 * 1) What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
 * A. The greatest strength and weakness is the fact that we are a consensusology.  We are strong because of this, the best ideas emerge at the top.  We are weak because of this, the best ideas can't get the support to pass.  We do well with small changes, but the big changes are like pulling teeth.  The other unfortunate consequence of the consensusology is that nothing is finalized.  An issue is "resolved" today, but in six month the same issue will be back at RfC/AfD/village pump.  As for content, I believe the review processes are well done.  Articles that have passed FA are as reliable as anything else available on the web.  Heck, in many cases other reviewed articles on Wikipedia can be just as reliable.  The area we need the most attention/help is with new BLPs---especially when dealing with those of marginal notability.  The one's that are worth having, but might fall into the cracks as nobody watches them or ensures that their sourcing is reliable.
 * 1) What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
 * A. Wikipedia is just like every other endeavor, the 90-10 rule runs rampant. 90 percent of the work is done by 10 percent of the users.  Who these 10% are will change from time to time, but we never know who the next superuser will be.  The new user making their first edits today might become the next SandyGeorgia in six months.  For this reason, you can't have too many users.
 * 1) Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
 * A. Burnout happens, this is particularly true when we have people working the same issues over and over again. Part of the challenge is to find new areas to keep people interested and active with the project.  Going back to the 90-10 rule, whenever somebody in that 10% leaves the project, it is a loss---but somebody else will almost always emerge as their replacement.
 * 1) Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
 * A.No, I do not believe "the project" should make those priorities. But I do believe indivdiual projects should be doing so.  Where would "the project" assess articles on WSOP bracelet winners?  Probably not overly high, but WP:POKER might assess them as more important within their purview.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A. Yes. Most people get started as anonymous editors.  In my case, I stared as an anonymous editor who wanted to get involved in a few specific discussions.  I had no intention of sticking around on wikipedia, but it was from those few articles that i got involved with wikipedia.
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A. I would like it to be easier to enact real change on wikipedia and to have these changes become more set in stone. It is virtually impossible to get community support and when that support is achieved, it is often changed at a later discussion.  E.g. what we decide today, may be reversed next month, just get the right people involved.  While these two issues appear to be contradictory, they are not.  The areas that are difficult to change are the ones that require more thought and planning---the changes that affect overarching aspects of the project.  At the same time, the nuiances are often changed without the wider communities knowledge or invovlement.  A group of people get together on one of the sub-pages and "tweak" the wording of a policy/guideline.  That tweaking is later reverted by another group that says the first group didn't have the authority to make the change.

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754
Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!


 * 1) What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE  b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * 2) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from Balloonman
If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators

Q 2-3 relate to the following scenario: ''A request for arbitration is submitted concerning an administrator who: (1) is territorial over their admin actions - refusing to permit their peers to modify their actions in any way, (2) has a history of threatening their peers with arbitration requests, and (3) appears to generally view their role on the project as a combination of cop, prosecutor, and jury (in favour of convictions via blocks) rather than the actual role that many Wikipedians expect of admins. The admin in question spends a lot of time in AE, praising and defending AC, as well as statements that you have made as an arbitrator. This request is filed at a time where AC is still the only body capable of desysopping an admin. Assume that a request for comment on user conduct has resulted in mixed responses, but the admin in question has refused to heed any requests to change his approach.''

Q2. How would you deal with or respond to this situation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Q3. {placeholder}

Question from Offliner
Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick answer... While this information is freely available on my user page, I do not believe that asking a person their nationality is an appropriate question here. People should be judged on their overall individual merits/weaknesses, not based upon the color of their skin/religious beliefs/nationality.


 * That being said, I understand your concerns. This is the EN wikipedia, and the vast majority of users are going to come from English Speaking countries---and mainly from countries where English is a native language.  As this is a consensusology (with some divine intervention) the odds are that people where English is the mother tongue will dominate ArBCOM.  While asking a person their nationality/place of origins is, IMHO, inappropriate, I do think it is acceptable to address the root question that you are really asking.  "How can I know if you will have empathy or understanding for cultures/situations that differ from your own?  Can you convince me that you can grasp different cultural/religious backgrounds?"


 * I hope I can---and this is all on my user page as well. I've lived all over the world.  I've lived in Asia, Europe (2 countries), and about a third of the states in the United States.  I went to a graduate school that claimed to be the first of its type to officially march in a Gay Rights parade and I would guess a third of the student body was from African Nations.  In college, I majored in Chinese History and Asian Religions (but have not been active in those areas because that was decades ago and it frustrates and hurts me that I can't remember the basic facts that I used to know so well.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)