Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

User:Durin/fodder

< User:Durin

Some ramblings from a mad man. Move along, nothing to see here...

Factual circumstance, until proven otherwise

A situation can evolve where a current method, a current mantra becomes irreplaceable within the framework for which it was developed. Such a circumstance might be excusable if there are potentially serious consequences to discarding the mantra and the framework under which it was developed. It is inexcusable to not discard it when the consequences of not doing so prove more harmful than inaction. The global inertia of the mantra is difficult to overcome and supporters of it will fight vociferously against proposed change. You must unshackle yourselves from preconceived notions of how things must be and focus on the overarching goal. What are we here for? The mantra, or the goal?

Upset the norm, and people will oppose you. Suggest a different path, and people will mock you. Invent the future, and people will flock to you in droves and laugh at those who opposed you. Growth will happen painfully. The future calls, and demands attention.

Relevant quotes

edit
  • "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."[1] A memo at Western Union, 1878 (or 1876)
  • "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."[7] --w:Mohandas Gandhi

References

edit
  1. ↑ http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions#Telephone.2C_telegraph
  2. ↑ http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/tnc.html
  3. ↑ http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/tnc.html
  4. ↑ http://www.av8n.com/physics/ex-cathedra.htm
  5. ↑ http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions#Future_historical.2C_social.2C_and_pop-cultural_events_2
  6. ↑ http://www.av8n.com/physics/ex-cathedra.htm
  7. ↑ http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ghandi#On_nonviolence
edit
edit

Miscellany

edit
  • Nominees can be opposed for doing the right thing. Yet, in a voting system it still counts.
  • Answers to standard Q1 in RfB's of active bureaucrats show strong, strong tendency to vote counting. Review and summarize.
  • Moralis' RfA closed considerably late, with two RfAs with due times coming after his being closed. One way to look at this; the bureaucrat who close the two is vote counting; can't count votes easily on Moralis, so avoid.
  • One moron, one vote (DG). WP:NOT a democracy, but we treat it like one. The goals of the project must be served by any given process. If that process isn't serving the needs of the project, it's broken.
  • Endless quibbling over inclusion/exclusion of tallies, even the position of the tally (if it's included)
  • Tallies on RfA were added by Ed Poor in February of 2004, without discussion amongst the community. It's entrenched now, so the presumption is the community accepts it. But, if the only thing you've ever breathed is air, you'll firmly believe that the only thing you CAN breathe is air. Similarly, the breakdown into sup/opp/neu sections was done without community input about the same time.

Other ideas

edit


Backlogs

edit

Other material

edit

Polls

edit

Reform stuff

edit

DFA stuff

edit


RfA as RfC

edit

Problems with RfA in current form

edit
  • System encourages lack of participation if an RfA appears to be going well. Typified by this. Some RfAs have closed in an unexpected direction because bureaucrats exercised some small discretion, and people have responded saying "If I'd known you were going to do that, I would have opposed". There may be some case examples in Carnildo, Ryulong RfAs.

Tallies

edit

Tally problems

edit
  • Encourage sockpuppets
  • Encourage voting
  • Discourage discussion
  • Discourages contributions; this is typified by [3]. People count votes and then decide if they want to contribute or not. Many RfAs have begun swimmingly, then failed because a contributor found something of significance to cause hesitation in making someone an admin. Vote counting actively discourages this.

Need for admins

edit

Experiment objections

edit
  • Experiments should be tried off the main page first, agreed upon, then done "live" (comments from a few)
  • RfA is gridlocked; change will never accepted.
  • Set up an RFA process workgroup whose task will be to propose and experiment with RFA formats. [whose task will be to propose and experiment with RFA formats.]
  • Severe bureaucracy.

Quotes

edit
  • "As Wikipedia grows, people will come to rely on numerical counts more and more" Meelar 21:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) [4]

System broken

edit

There's never ending debate about whether RfA is broken. Some people believe the standards are not rising [5]. Others believe the system works well, based on anecdotal evidence ([6] paragraph 4). The actual data shows both of these positions to be wrong. There are peaks and valleys in promotion rates, but the overall trend has been down. Also, in the first three months of RfA 19 of 21 editors with less than a thousand edits were promoted. The only two that were not had less than 50 edits.

In general, the community at RfA is incapable of agreeing whether the system is broken or not. There's probably a significant subset of the population that will defend RfA not being broken based largely on liking the current system rather than actual data.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Durin/fodder&oldid=573183"