User talk:The Community/Archive1

Don't take this the wrong way, but what on earth is this about? gb ^{(t, c)} 13:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the User page; this is a response to an implicit suggestion at the Village Pump, which will be referenced here in short order. To summarize, as one small consequence, it is now possible to block User:The Community. But I rather doubt that this user will give cause for that. It's possible that some administrator will block the account solely on the basis of the name, and I presume that this will be handled through normal process if it happens. The Community will not oppose such a block, though it may appeal without argument, beyond that necessary to inform an unblocking administrator and to give the actual community an opportunity to intervene if it chooses.

And I was about to post this when I hit an edit conflict with the above:

I authorize the creation of this account as a sock puppet of mine. Any changes to the ownership of this account will be as authorized by normal Wikipedia process. This account will not be used for any edits outside of this User and Talk page except pursuant to guidelines on the User page, and as authorized by the community of those participating, nor will there be any further edits to these pages unless this function of community secretary is seconded by another Wikipedia user, here.--Abd (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the userpage...that's why I asked you what it is about, as firstly it's not particularly clear, and secondly there appears to be no point to what you're trying to achieve. You seem to be creating an account to represent "The Community". That account will only make edits authorised by people that, erm, authorise it. It may report that a certain percentage of users have approved or disapproved of an opinion. Why? What's the point? You cite the consequence that it is now possible to block "The Community". It's possible to block any user. It doesn't answer my question, which is what is the point of what you're doing?

You say that there is an implicit suggestion at the Village Pump. Firstly, that hasn't been referenced. Secondly, if it's implicit, then it's not explicit, then it'll be quite difficult to reference. I fail to see what this account can do - if a user wishes to express an opinion on an issue, an XfD, an RfA, an RfC, then surely they, erm, just express it. What's the point of creating an account for them to express their opinion to, then having that account express their opinion? gb ^{(t, c)} 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a basic principle of efficient decision-making process not to debate any question unless there is a specific proposal, and it has been seconded. The creation of this page is almost, but not quite yet, a "motion to create an office," and, if nobody seconds it, it would be worse than useless to debate it, a colossal and, at best, premature waste of time. However, the questions asked by User:Gilesbennett deserve answers. They will come. I have children to care for, job responsibilities, and, indeed, I actually edit articles. For now, what is on the User page and this Talk page is not yet a sufficiently specified proposal to even discuss; but I expect to bring it to that in short order. Until then, notice that what is on the user page circumscribes and limits the account quite sharply, beyond the limitations for an ordinary sock puppet. There is some comment from me on this, currently, at the Village Pump, but it does not address the specifics of how this account would function. Until that appears, even looking for a second may be premature. I do know what I'm doing, however, I have both experience and vision and an understanding of how to go about implementing the vision -- if enough users sign on, which could be a fairly small number -- in a thoroughly non-disruptive and efficient way. Part of this process is to avoid useless debate. So: below are links to the Pump comments, and watch for more explanation about what is being proposed. The account User:The Community is simply waiting for instructions from the community, which may take a little time, a lot of time, or may never come. Meanwhile, let's not waste time. We do have a project to build.

But one simple answer: what this account would do and how the community would advise it, clearly, is not what gb is apparently thinking. Suppose that a million Wikipedia users tried to express their opinion to User:The Community. What would happen? Suppose, indeed, that 600 users try to express their opinion, which happens in various situations -- which typically waste huge amounts of editor time and generate, often, more heat than light. No, it is not simply that this would be an account that "users would express their opinion to." Rather, this is an account that would be used to report a reasonably accurate community consensus on a far broader base than has ever been possible, *without* all the individual users having do more than lift a finger, once (and that action is just as easily revocable). And if they do not lift a finger, nothing is taken away from them, they are not excluded, they will not be misrepresented, something which currently happens all the time. ("Community consensus" is a phrase that is often used, and it is the theoretical basis for most decision-making on Wikipedia, i.e., the guideline and policy pages, but also the editorial process, but I've never seen an operating mechanism which actually broadly negotiates and measures it, and the existing procedures that might theoretically be open to it would break down if a few thousand users tried to participate (excepting certain "elections" which are specifically set up to handle large numbers, and which still attract only a snall percentage of users. Note that I am not arguing or contending at all that we should change the existing system. In fact, if it were up to me, we'd leave it in place. Something very light and easy -- and efficient -- would supplement it. So watch. It will all be explained. But that takes time.

Diffs to the Village Pump edits: [1] [2] [3] (a minor edit is skipped).

--Abd (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your specific proposal appears to be some form of voting by proxy, to save editor time and Wikipedia time. The Community garners community opinion on an issue and reports accordingly. How, I ask again, does this differ from any process in place at the moment? How do you think this would work? I tell The Community "Vote in favour of keeping any articles that start with the letter A". I save myself some time. The Community reports accordingly. What The Community doesn't know (because I wasn't asked) was that I would want to vote in favour of keeping any articles that start with the letter A "except on Thursdays", when I vote against them. The only way for the Community to correctly report my view, and to therefore correctly report the view of hte Community, is by asking me, and reporting accordingly. Assuming a position from silence is fraught with difficulty. I might have voted against a specific article not just because it's Thursday, but also because I woke up on the right side of the bed. However, since I haven't raised my finger, the Community reports my opinion in one direction, whereas actually it's completely the contrary.

You list three diffs to the village pump. Two of those are you, leaping on what is clearly a comment by Zenwhat using the concept of The Community to make a point. You've grabbed that point by the wrong end and are waggling it furiously. The system works now. Ask people to vote, and they'll respond if they're interested, and if they want their vote to count. If they're not, or they don't, then they won't vote. What you're proposing doesn't supplement that. It simply makes it more unreliable. You say that you're busy. You're clearly a good editor, your punctuation and grammar display intelligence, but this? I really don't know what this is. I'm assuming good faith as fast as I can, and I don't think it constitutes vandalism, just a bit of misguidedness. I would recommend you use your limited time to better ends. gb ^{(t, c)} 22:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are all me except what is signed by someone else explicitly. I normally stay logged in to Wikipedia, but logged out to create that account, and forgot to log back in.... So there are some IP edits, which I fixed.

You are correct that it involves "some form of voting by proxy," but that alone would be highly misleading. Because you think of that alone, you then make a whole series of assumptions, quite as any reasonable person might. What it is, in fact, is Delegable proxy, but not only that, application of DP in a very narrow context that is utterly contrary to what you have assumed, what I call the Free Association concept.

I actually wrote quite a bit more, but then deleted it. I'd rather deal with one very small step at a time. This Talk page is effectively a meeting place for those interested in the possibility of a voluntary but formally specified structure used for the measurement of consensus, and User:The Community -- which is only a tentative name and the place of "meeting" could change at any time, and more than one meeting may exist -- is a voluntary servant of this "meeting." Essentially, I'm calling the meeting, and one person arrived early, just to see what is going on. At some point, a few invitations might go out: any user who finds out about this may come and may invite anyone. The Community won't be issuing invitations until his role has been defined, but I might, as Abd, some who have previously expressed some interest. By its nature, this meeting is open to any Wikipedia user, though certain aspects, by their nature, will require some account identification and will therefore only be for registered Wikipedians.

A few words for what this is not. This is not an attempt to create a new bureaucracy. There will probably be no elections. This meeting will not attempt, if I have anything to say about it, to control Wikipedia or to use collective power to disrupt or improperly influence decisions. This is not another Esperanza or WP:AMA, although it is not impossible that this would facilitate certain kinds of activities that were undertaken by these efforts. What I see as being possible here is a method of advising members and other interested persons, where the advisor is, in effect, a large -- perhaps very large -- community, with participation bias balanced out, with noise filtering, and all the necessities of large scale communication -- but it starts very small.

No major effort should be required. "If we want to change the world, it has to be easy." So .... take it easy! It will all become clear in good time. Or it won't. And thanks for the attempt to try to keep me from wasting my time! But this is actually pretty important to me, to, as I wrote on User talk:Gilesbennett, toss a little leftover yogurt in the lake, to see if the time is ripe.

(And I have not claimed that the system now is not working. But I also see it failing or being extraordinarily inefficient in various ways, frequently, and, as was expressed on the Pump, editors and administrators are burning out, and I expect the problem to get worse as the scale continues to increase; Wikipedia is not as new as we might think, it is only the technology and speed that have changed; the organizational concepts and problems have a long history, with various successes and failures. Mostly, in the long run, the latter, but there are a few exceptions, and I've taken most of my ideas from them.)

--Abd (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Delegable proxy

Additional discussion is also going on at Wikipedia talk:Delegable proxy. Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking per WP:USERNAME

I'm blocking this account per the username policy. It is misleading in that it implies (and, indeed explicitly claims on the user page) to be representative of the community when no such authority or mandate exists. It may be an interesting experiment in delegation, but it's a bad idea to proceed without some consensus that the concept is desirable, let alone workable.

The account being blocked does not preclude continuing discussion on this talk page, or further discussion by its controller elsewhere, of course. — Coren ^(talk) 03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I've added a disclaimer to the user page to make clear that the account is blocked and has no authority, but the actual text serves to illustrate the intent should discussion continue. — Coren ^(talk) 04:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it is not clear, I have no objection to this account being blocked at this time. The account wouldn't be used unless there was a community consensus that it should be used, and so blocking at this point is completely free from harm. Not completely free from irony, but I can't help that! --Abd (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]