Wikipedia talk:Climate change team

A bold endeavour, but...
(William M. Connolley 18:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Well its a bold idea but I'm not at all sure it will work. To start with, I think the make-only-edits-you're-sure-of and no reverts is unworkable. It should be the other way round: edit as you like, but if anyone reverts your edits then leave it in its reverted (ie, original) state and discuss it on the talk page.


 * Enforcement mechanism: Anyone who is on the team may shift another member from "member in good standing" to "suspended" status. (But only for "reverting a revert". In other words, we agree to a much higher standard than the three-revert rule. Our rule is: one revert, and it goes straight to talk.)


 * I'm hoping that the "carrot" of being considered a team player will be sufficient motivation.


 * Let's work together! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:42, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the wording.
"only make changes you are SURE none of the other signers would object to"


 * I believe this line presents an intrinsically problematic situation. In my experiences so far in attempting to contribute to climate change articles, absolutely every possible change is objected to, no matter how well documented.  This presents an easy mechanism for stagnating change simply by one signer saying, "Nope, I object" to everything which does not support a particular point of view.  This takes the frequent-reversion problem many of us have been experiencing, and automates it.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would prefer if the goals were centered more around supporting NPOV as a principle, around permitting the inclusion of documented facts, around working with and improving, rather than reverting, well-intentioned edits, and around treating other editers and contributers with a jovial and polite attitude.    &mdash; Cortonin | Talk


 * My first introduction to the wiki climate change articles was when I wandered into global warming, saw some blatant POV pushing scattered about (not just POV, but POV pushing, which looks much worse and feels much less encyclopedic). So I fixed up a few things here and there, using more neutral word choices and modifying a few sentences that seemed to say, "There is only one possible way to look at this, and only one possible interpretation."  I came back a few hours later, and my changes were all reverted.  So I tried to fix the POV pushing again with some different ways of phrasing things, and even tried some minor rearrangement to fix the POV.  I came back a few hours later, and all my changes were reverted.  So I tried putting a NPOV dispute at the top, then I came back a few hours later and THAT was reverted.  I started discussing the matter on the talk page, and I received comments like "I've read the NPOV - skeptics constantly use it to try to force their opinions into various GW articles." and "This is silly." and "You need to put up" and "Your inability to read does you no credit."  It turns out it's very difficult to contribute under these conditions, and so the articles are left with one primary editor and the people who agree with his views.  I think that's what a climate change team's goals would need to focus on addressing.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In addition, every documentation or source I provided in my attempt to make contributions was labelled "wanting", "dubious", or "uncredible", regardless of the background or credentials of the initial source. Most of the existing comments in the climate related articles are undocumented and unreferenced as is, but attempts to correct those comments with other documentation are dismissed.  I think we need an approach which reflects that if it's commonly documented out there, then clearly there are people who support it, and NPOV policy dictates that we should include that information regardless of our personal feelings about the people saying it.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * From the Talk:global warming page from long before I arrived at this page, someone who was not involved in the related RFC: "You both are displaying rogue behavior. I give up. Can't fight two persons obsessed with destroying people's work. I never said Ed's work was 100% accurate or perfect NPOV, but wholesale rollbacks are mean-spirited and amount to spitting on people's efforts. I will not discuss any specifics until you guys decide to adhere to better behavior."  How many potentially good editors did we lose on the climate change pages because of these antics?  I think one of the major focal points has to be establishing a code of conduct that ENCOURAGES contributers to help out, rather than goes out of its way to discourage other contributers.  Personally I found this set of pages to be the most discouraging example of how the wikipedia format functions since I came to this place, and I'd like it if we could fix that.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I stand by what I said then. If really necessary, we can rake all this up again. Trying to talk with StM foundered on the point you quote above: he wouldn't discuss specifics. However, I don't see the point of raking all this up. Ed has made a bold attempt to produce a new start and its worth trying. Oh, and if there is anything that you consider to be undocumented on the climate change articles, I suggest you list them (maybe only the first 5 or so, no need to get overwhelmed) on the appropriate talk pages, if you can't find the supporting doc yourself.

"if anyone reverts your edits then leave it in its reverted (ie, original) state and discuss it on the talk page."


 * This has the same problem as the original situation. Nothing gets changed because improvements get reverted.  What happened to the ideas of NPOV, cooperation, and civility?  All the Wikipedia articles on other topics seem to do okay shooting for those ideas.  There's a Wikipedia policy page somewhere which instructs people not to blanket revert well-intentioned changes if they can be further worked with and improved, so I don't think it's productive to make our climate change policy "blanket revert anything you don't like, then talk about it".     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 21:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is different in two ways. (1) It's a gentlemen's agreement among the signers; we're committing to a pledge and making ourselves mutually accountable; we're answerable to no one else but each other (non-signers aren't participating in this, er, global protocol). (2) It prevents things from getting any worse, which is a heck of a lot better than letting things get further out of hand! --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * If official policy on climate change articles is going to be to make no changes because they'll all get reverted by the most ambitious reverters, I think you're going to see even less friendly interaction than we have, fewer improvements, and more decay of the articles. And anyone interested in cooperative editing toward NPOV will simply end up moving on to other articles.  As I said, I think we need to encourage people to contribute.  In order to speak productively toward a solution, I will place a pledge suggestion below.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 21:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pledge Suggestion
I believe the following points would really help to improve the editing environment surrounding the climate change articles. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 21:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We, the undersigned, agree to work harmoniously together on on all articles related to climate change. This especially includes global warming, greenhouse gas, Kyoto Protocol and related controversial articles which have been marred by edit wars of late.

Therefore, we pledge to each other that we will adhere to the following rules:


 * To adhere to and strive for the NPOV policy.
 * To encourage contributions from other editors with friendly, cooperative, and productive discourse on the discussion pages.
 * To work together to form consensus on controversial components of these articles.
 * To use facts, evidence, and documentation whenever possible.
 * To facilitate and permit any reasoned interpretations of the existing evidence whether they match or contradict the current scientific consensus, with appropriate documented mention of which interpretations the current scientific consensus supports.
 * To avoid blanket reverts of well-intentioned contributions to these articles, and to attempt to work with and improve all well-intentioned contributions to these articles.

I agree with these, too, but getting people to "sign on" to a binding agreement is easier if the agreement is simple. I intend to do my best to adhere to the above "Cortoninian Points", but I have promised to adhere to the "One-revert Rule".

Why not join William and me in this? Try it for a week or two. There's nothing to lose: if it works, the problem is solved. If it fails, no harm done and you can just opt out. (No one is going to mine your harbors or triple the import duties on ya, mate! It's all the honor system around here.) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 22:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Because I'm not signing an agreement that says anything WMC reverts stays reverted. The entire point of the RFC was to stop that behavior, not encourage it.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 02:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Name List
These people commented at the RFC:


 * Baylink
 * Ben
 * Cortonin
 * Uncle Ed
 * G-Man
 * Graft
 * GregBenson
 * JonGwynne
 * MichaelSirks
 * Pjacobi
 * Rd232
 * User:Sheldon Rampton
 * Silverback
 * Sunray
 * TDC
 * Vsmith
 * William M. Connolley

Do we really need 55% of these to sign up, to get this team concept working? I'm willing to start right now! (Or Monday, anyway ... I always take weekends off) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 23:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that is a positive approach! I will be away next week and won't get to a computer much.  However, I have every confidence in the folks that have signed up for the Climate Change Team to carry it off.  Good luck!  You will likely need it as one of the partys may still be emeshed in POV. Sunray 07:01, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * (William M. Connolley 17:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)) The atmosphere still seems rather poisonous. Ed: you may want to read the new bit at the end of the RFC and see if you're still happy in the company you're keeping...

Project Problem
Ben said on the Project Page: ''The problem is that this stalls the page in its current state and puts new contributors at a disadvantage. Those who "like it as it is" and have the time to "police" the page can simply use this contract as weight to stifle any newcomer's opposition to the current state of the article.''


 * That sounds familiar. (SEWilco 07:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC))
 * False consensus effect refers to the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them.
 * Groupthink is one process by which a group can make bad or irrational decisions.
 * Majoritarianism asserts that a majority is entitled to a certain degree of primacy.
 * Minoritarianism asserts that a minority entitled to a certain degree of primacy.
 * Oligarchy is rule by a small group.
 * Bandwagon fallacy

One Simple Rule
Does it matter that the "one simple (revert) rule" does not mention membership in the team? (SEWilco 07:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC))