User talk:GTBacchus/Temp

Comments by MartinRe

I see you mentioned in the aside in the T1/T2 debate that you were looking for conversation, so I hope you don't mind me adding a few ideas into the mix, if you're still at the brain storming stage. Writing essays has never been my strong point, but you're free to use/ignore any of the following semi-random thoughts:

On "scaling"

Consensus discussion don't scale easily, even with well intentioned parties, due to the what I call "the rainbow consensus paradox" :) Imagine you have a group of people trying to pick a colour, one likes red, another blue, and so on. All are well meaning and willing to compramise. However, due to the complexity of multiple discussions between different parties, after a while, red and blue compramise on magenta, yellow is willing to agree with blue and go with green, and the discussion goes around and around.

on decision making

A complex system needs both law and order, law (policies) to dictate what it correct, and order to have a method of making choices when neither are incorrect, but both cannot co-exist. (an example of the latter is choosing which side of the road to drive on, neither are fundamentally correct, but one has to be chosen to avoid chaos) I think wikipeda is weak in this at the moment.

on descriptive vs prescriptive

Both are valid, within reason, if you follow Wikipedia:Interpret all rules. Prescriptive is good as it gives a sense of predictability, but being too "prescriptive" and following the rules literally leaves potential for abuse via gaming the system. Being descriptive is good as it allows interpretation of cases that weren't invisigned when policy was written, but over use means decisions appear arbitary. I think both are compatable, so long as any change is gradual, people who believe policy is descriptive won't object if actions are within a reasonable interpretion, and those that believe it is descriptive can steer policy if their interpetation gains consensus. IMO, it's the step jump discontinuity that creates the problem between these two groups.

On consensus

Consenus is based on the assumptions that those debating are aware of policy and are working towards a solution with that in mind. As the group grows larger, the chances of all sides debating according to policy reduces, often making the apparent consensus invalid according to policy. (c/f my vote stacking comment). The remedy already exists in most cases, those making decisions should based their decisions on weight of arguements, and not weight of numbers. However, that does not always appear to be the case, if a debate had one delete comment based on a policy reason and 10 keep based on non-policy reasons, chances are it would be kept by consensus. (and vice versa)

In summary

Large group discussions disintegrate into chaos too easily. Sometimes arbitary decisions must be made in preference to chaos. Policy changes should flow, not jump. Consenus should be based on policy.

Ideas

For major changes, having a large group of people all debating among themselves is chaotic - witness the repetition on the T1/T2 pages as different pairs of people debate the same arguements. Maybe we should have a "PolicyCom" where everyone can make their submissions, and the "Policy Com" can make the decision based on the arguments put forward, in the same way an admin decides afd's.

To finish

I talk too much! Regards, MartinRe 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Rfrisbie

These are just some bulleted notes of concepts this essay and related discussions bring to mind. Rfrisbie^talk 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Paradigm shift: Policies can lead or follow. Nimble organizations lead. Behemoths follow and/or perrish. Is Wikipedia following a classic growth/decline curve? When "crisis" becomes "opportunity," a paradigm shift starts a new growth curve.
• M. Scott Peck's "The meaning of true community": Peck describes what he considers to be the most salient characteristics of a true community. How well is Wikipedia doing on this?
  • Inclusivity, commitment and consensus: Members accept and embrace each other, celebrating their individuality and transcending their differences. They commit themselves to the effort and the people involved. They make decisions and reconcile their differences through consensus.
  • Realism: Members bring together multiple perspectives to better understand the whole context of the situation. Decisions are more well-rounded and humble, rather than one-sided and arrogant.
  • Contemplation: Members examine themselves. They are individually and collectively self-aware of the world outside themselves, the world inside themselves, and the relationship between the two.
  • A safe place: Members allow others to share their vulnerability, heal themselves, and express who they truly are.
  • A laboratory for personal disarmament: Members experientially discover the rules for peacemaking and embrace its virtues. They feel and express compassion and respect for each other as fellow human beings.
  • A group that can fight gracefully: Members resolve conflicts with wisdom and grace. They listen and understand, respect each others’ gifts, accept each others’ limitations, celebrate their differences, bind each others’ wounds, and commit to a struggle together rather than against each other.
  • A group of all leaders: Members harness the “flow of leadership” to make decisions and set a course of action. It is the spirit of community itself that leads and not any single individual.
  • A spirit: The true spirit of community is the spirit of peace, love, wisdom and power. Members may view the source of this spirit as an outgrowth of the collective self or as the manifestation of a Higher Will.

• Mass customization: That's what computers are for. Celebrate diversity! :-)
• Workplace bullying: "Admins behaving badly" falls under this category, IMHO.

Scaling: oligarchy vs. influential core

As I read the Shirky essay you linked to, I was reminded of an important issue about scaling that wasn't really addressed by the article. That issue, and one which I have often encountered on relatively long-lasting internet forums, is how to avoid creating a small group of users who hold all the influence, even if they do not have any official recognition.

Specifically, this issue often focuses around the nebulous classifications of vet/regular/newbie members, and whether members of the higher "ranks" are held to a more lenient standard, but in a general sense, the issue is this: How does one allow new members to enter the higher levels of the community, and what level of input should they have relative to the older members? If it should be the same for everyone, then the new members will eventually cause a descent into chaos, as they grow to outnumber the veterans and regulars. If the veterans and regular members have so much more influence than the new members that there is essentially an uncrossable gap between them, then you have created an oligarchy, where the rules and the rulers are already decided and if you didn't show up back when the site was first starting, you have no input. This becomes further complicated when you consider things like Adminship (who gets it?) and the at times undue influence an older member can exert by having a greater level of respect from other members. --tjstrf 09:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)