Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/3D2Do

[ N! : using principles of Mechanism design and Social capital, we designed these two GGTF ci+3d2do Project & Talk pages, such that all your questions are answered plainly in just 2 pages, in theory. If they aren't, then there are problems with our design. Please fix it, or post your questions/ideas here. Thank you. ] =New coordination page for GGTF=


 * drafted the table, to include the 97 participants to date, and 3 to-do articles i found on our GGTF front page
 * table includes 7 red-links in the headers, to make it easier for you to add Articles/Pages to this list
 * if you're not comfy with markup, just paste the table into your Sandbox via Edit (in Visual), switch to Source, then paste the code back into the 3D2Do page

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this 3D2Do.

Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 18:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

=Gender gap and Wikipedian rules=

i saw on the to-do list on our front page that these rules need improvement: WP:CIV, WP:HAR, WP:NPA. What are the specific problems that we should fix in these rules? - Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 18:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

= Q&A on Cooperation Index + 3d2do =

What kind of information, exactly, are you trying to collect there?
This Cooperation Index & 3d2do Project is not about collecting information. It's not even about information, really. It's about action. Specifically, it's about coordinating action.

Information in the Wikipedia Community is just dumb dataෆ until we Wikipedians put it to good use. For the purposes (Goal) of this Coordination Game, we use data to:


 * 1) gauge the state of an existing Game [ f.e whether it is cooperative/plus-sum or non-cooperative/competitive/minus-sum ]. We WP:SHUN Competitive Games, and focus singly on Games of Cooperation, which are a lot more fun.
 * 2) measure the level of Coordination in existing Cooperative Gamesʛ
 * 3) identify the Players in an existing Cooperation Game
 * 4) measure their contributions to the Goal of the Game
 * 5) measure the overall Coordination of Players towards the Goal of the Game.

ෆ (no offense to data)

ʛ If we were to hold one finger down on just one problem that's holding Wikipedia back, it would be on this one problem: Coordination. We do not have a shortage of Players who want to make Wikipedia better - who want to make The Whole World a Better Place. We certainly do not have a shortage of Projects and Goals. What we suffer from is a lack of Coordination. In short, we have a Coordination Problem.

And it's the simplest kind of Coordination problem - one that we play dozens of times a day: We're strangers, walking down a narrow hallway, toward each other. You step to your left, I step to my left. We go on walking. No problem. Score is tied at 100/100:100/100. We both win, nobody loses. That's a Nash equilibrium. Now rewind. You step to your right, I step my right. We go on walking. That's also a Nash equilibrium. Rewind again. You step to your left, I step to your left, we go on walking. That's my coffee on your suit.

We don't need no stinkin "metrics"

There is only one number that matters in this Game: The Cooperation Index, c. Just 1 number. So simple it doesn't even qualify as a whole "metric" - just the last letter of that word. The whole equation that we use to describe Wikipedian Cooperation is even shorter than the word "metric". It is this: c = b/a Lowest score is 0. Highest Score is 100. There are no Losers. There are no individual "Winners". Only Cooperation gets a score. There are 3 major Winners, but they aren't even playing the Game: (1) Wikipedia (the Encyclopedia), (2) our Readers, who are The Most Valuable Players in the Game (and don't even know it), and (3) our WikiBoys who'd rather be playing with their soldier toys. Best we leave them alone.

Is it "contributions" to those policies?
''... in which case...you're not helping. I'm going to be blunt, constant upheaval at policy pages is not what GGTF is for''

We have Zero (0) interest in Wikipedian rules, per se except for these Five (5) which we do hold sacred: 3 which pertain to Content [ (1) neutral point of view, (2) verifiability, (3) no original research ] and 2 that are Behavioral [ (4) be civil - pretend we're collegial editors of the OED - and (5) WIKIPEDIANS! IGNORE ALL RULES! - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. ]

The 3 "policies" which I inserted as placeholders onto the current 3d2do for the Gender Gap project are there only because those were the only 3 actionable items I found on the Front Page of GGTF. I'd rather not deal with them at all, but if that's what GGTF really wants to do, then i'd like to know what the specific problems are (ref section above). If you don't want them there, please replace them with something you do want to work on, with others. IMDO, it's best that each project be aimed at producing good Content for our Readers. That's what they care about the most (that, and the toys from Wikimedia and others which make it easier for Readers to read and use the encyclopedia). They don't much care about - even know about - our 10-year obsession with rules. The "Wikipedia problem" is a WikipediaN problem, and no one really cares about us until we mess up.

Gamifying policy discussion?
... and treating policy discussions like games is not a good idea.

Definition of terms in addition those wikified above
 * Mechanism design is a field in economics and game theory that takes an engineering approach to designing economic mechanisms or incentives, toward desired objectives, in strategic settings, where players act rationally. Because it starts at the end of the game, then goes backwards, it is also called reverse game theory.
 * Social capital is a form of economic and cultural capital in which human relationships are central, transactions are marked by reciprocity, trust, and cooperation, and market agents produce goods and services not mainly for themselves, but for a common good.
 * CI+3d2do is just one (simple but not simplistic) application of MDesign, designed to free the Wikipedian market in social capital, and release these market forces so as to write a better encyclopedia for our Readers - to share our knowledge, and to make knowledge free.

Shouldn't we take a vote on this first?
One really cool thing about this design? No need for votes. The only "vote" that matters is the X that each free Player casts in favor of an article s/he commits to improve, in coordination with h/er fellow editors. Doesn't matter if an article gets 2 Xes or 200. What does matter is that it's not just one person working alone, or worse, thousands of people trying to figure out where to start. Best of all, IMDO? No need for any more talk, except among cooperating editors, on the specific task of improving a specific article.

What problems are you trying to solve?
Ultimately, these 8:

Systemic bias. The eight major categories of study for maladaptive organizational behavior as they apply to maintaining and supporting Wikipedia are:


 * 1) Counterproductive work behavior, or CWB, consisting of behavior by editors that harm or is intended to harm Wikipedia or its editors' constructive contributions – usually identified as "edit warring" or "disruptive editing";
 * 2) Mistreatment of the people who edit and maintain Wikipedia. There are several types of mistreatment that editors endure – along with a large contingent of corrective measures and norms of editing policy available as countermeasures;
 * 3) Abusive supervision; that is, in most organizations, the extent to which a supervisor engages in a pattern of behavior that harms subordinates: In Wikipedia this term would be applied to abusive editors who are entrusted with corrective procedures or referrals to others for correction;
 * 4) Bullying. Although definitions of bullying vary, it involves a repeated pattern of harmful behaviors directed towards individuals, and in Wikipedia this would mean any individual editor;
 * 5) Incivility, or low-intensity discourteous and rude behavior with ambiguous intent to detract from productivity and violate norms for appropriate behavior in the workplace, such as that which may be found while editing contributions;
 * 6) Gender bias, behavior that denigrates or mistreats a worker because of his or her gender, that creates an offensive workplace or that interferes with anybody being able to do the job. The gender gap at Wikipedia is well recognized as an issue deserving of attention, as discussed in the subsection above. Although an effective counter-measure to this gender gap has yet to be fully identified at Wikipedia, several programs have been examined for their potential in moving towards achieving gender equality;
 * 7) Occupational stress, or the imbalance between the demands of a job and the resources that help cope with them. In Wikipedia, this term would cover the editing process, which requires mental and physical effort; and
 * 8) Maladaptive standards and practices, in which the accumulation of piecemeal standards adopted over time begin to show a cumulative negative effect. In Wikipedia these dimensions would include WP:Instruction creep.

- -
 * This first application of our CI-3d2do is designed as a "effective counter-measure" to Systemic Problem #6. But our underlying hypothesis is this: a simple app such as this may be applied to increase cooperation throughout the whole Wikipedian Community. Neigh, Hippies: throughout The Whole World. Kindest, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 08:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * updated Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 21:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this a game that encourages tag-spamming of articles about women?
Gamification is great, e.g. like what Stack Overflow does. This seems like gamification too, but it seems like a game that encourages tag-spamming of articles about women.

Tell me why I am wrong. Please? Someone? Anyone?--FeralOink (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)