Wikipedia talk:Areas for Reform

First comments

For various reasons, I've been doing a lot of thinking recently about individual actions and how they shape the project, both on project pages and in article space. When we consider the overall number of editors on Wikipedia we find ourselves using some fairly large figures; it's easy to lose sight of the fact that (eg) "1 million editors" actually means "1 million individual human beings". Take any one insignificant action, then multiply it by a million, and you're likely looking at something very significant indeed. What I'm leading up to is that even when we do all act within the bounds of policies and guidelines, there is still a huge possible range of individual actions, reactions, and behaviours.

I can't help but think that many of the issues being discussed might also consider our role as individual editors when looking for solutions. For example, in the very first section the topic is retaining old editors and recruiting/training new ones. This seems like an obvious case where individual actions might be as important as policy in terms of achieving desireable result. Specifically, we have a policy about not biting newbies, and it's a good one; however a "rule" about the treatment of newcomers could be supplemented with a paragraph on the philosophy of actually helping newcomers with a welcome template or a friendly takpage explanation (in addition to the usual terse edit summaries that we often tend to use) about "why I reverted your very first edit ever".

Currently the template being used on this project page includes 2 subheaders under "Possible solutions", they are "Modify an existing policy" and "Propose a new policy". Given what I've outlined above, might it be useful for some of the discussion topics to include a third possible solution: "Individual actions"? Or would that be a distraction from the larger topics being addressed? Just a thought...Doc Tropics 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a thoughtful comment, but just spreaking for myself, The question of reform is tied to hat can be improved via polcy. It doesn't mean you are wrong, but I think the kind of discussion you are envisioning may belong elsewhere - the list-serve? Jus my two cents. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I spend more time barking up the wrong tree than a nose-dead coonhound. Besides, now I'm 2 cents richer, and can retire to a life of luxury and ease. Thanks, Doc Tropics 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Brainstorming rules

The purpose of this page is such that there will often be a need for brainstorming. In conducting a brainstorming, various ground rules have been found to increase the effectiveness of the process. As some of these ground rules are counterintuitive, it may help to list them here, in the form in which they are currently given in our article on Brainstorming, at Brainstorming#Ground_Rules:

---

There are four basic rules in brainstorming. These are intended to reduce social inhibitions among groups members, stimulate idea generation, and increase overall creativity of the group.

1. Focus on quantity: This rule is a means of enhancing divergent production, aiming to facilitate problem solving through the maxim, quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated, the greater the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.
2. Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.
3. Welcome unusual ideas: To get a good and long list of ideas, unusual ideas are welcomed. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking may provide better solutions.
4. Combine and improve ideas: Good ideas may be combined to form a single better good idea, as suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association.

---

Sorting and evaluation of ideas follows after the idea generation phase. This being so, it may be useful to indicate on the page, for each topic, which stage we are currently in (idea generation, or evaluation). JN466 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems very valuable. I have no objction to your making whatever changes you envision! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done [1] JN466 12:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

A proposed thinktank

I have proposed a committee along the lines of what ArbCom appointed, but driven by community selection, here. It seems obvious to me that this page is synergistic with what I have proposed, so much so that I have suggested that the initial mandate of the Development Committee be to investigate and propose solutions for whatever people here achieve consensus on as issues facing Wikipedia. I would also hope and expect, should WP:DEVCOM become a functional body within Wikipedia, that many of the people who have commented here and at the RfC on the ACPD would stand for election to such a body, as whether they believe there are problems or no, they are passionate about making sure Wikipedia works. → ROUX ₪ 02:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope discussions about small groups won't keep others from engaging the larger task of adding to this list of important issues. And even with think tanks coming up with good proposals or compromises, we will still need better and more community facilitators than we have today. +sj+ 15:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV policy

It seems that one of the most common criticisms of the NPOV policy is that it gives editors the feeling that they are under a kind of forced mental reservation, which is a Jesuit doctrine that is meant to create doctrinal orthodoxy. Maintaining a feeling of prolonged mental reservation can actually be bad for your health, and I think this is one of the reasons that so many conflicts have erupted on Wikipedia. ADM (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this is silly. People in society always have to consider the views of others in some way. There are arguments at Wikipedia bcause Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and pople who would normally never talk to one another suddenly have to respect other people's views. This causes conflict. NPOV helps resolve conflcts. After all, NPOV puts no restrictions on what people think, only on what goes into an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maintaining articles: weeding the garden

This last month (July 2009), I went through a number of hometown-related articles and also every British writer I could find, making minor cleanups of the tail end of the articles, in the area of See also, Notes, References and External links. Of the 1300 edits I made, I would say that about 20% of the articles warranted one, two or more cosmetic edits and many really had referencing problems.

What I found was that:

• There was a great deal of inconsistency in the naming and order of sections and section/sub-section structure
• There were lots of bare URLs and URLs in brackets but without a title (eg "[3]->"), both mid-text and also in references
• References would be tagged onto the end of the articles after External links, possibly because the references were added after the article had initially been written
• Bulleted (and unbulleted) web and book citations were also frequently tagged onto the end of the reflist of numbered footnotes, rather than being split into two as (say) Notes and References
• Reflist was tagged on to the end of the web and book citations (or occasionally placed beneath page bottom templates)
• References and External links often had unbulleted enties tagged onto the end
• Templates to say that the article included text from XYZ 1911 were left at the bottom of the page and sometimes not brought under a reference section
• Articles lacked section structure, especially those lacking a lede
• Articles had incorrectly capitalized section headings or faulty section - sub-section structure
• Often long articles gave only one or two general references or maybe only one or two footnotes
• There were many unreliable sources used as references
• There were sections like "External links and references" or "External references" which made it difficult to work out what was being used as a reference and what was really only an unreliable external link.

Forget the details, though: my guess is that this means that these articles haven't been looked over recently or aren't being watched by experienced editors after creation and the novelty has worn off, and they often seem to be "growing untended weeds".

Just a thought, Esowteric+Talk 13:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Shame on you! How dare you actually go through articles and tidy them up, rather than spending your time talking about how the encyclopedia could be improved. If more people acquired your habits, we'd end up without a job here. JN466 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, next time just place one of these at the top of the page. ;-)

Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I interpret this as a symtpom of our not atracting enough new editors, or losing old editors. These articles could have been created before certain policies developed, and the creator left before that happened. We need more editors like you. How do we recruit more, and then retain them? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was meant to be funny. I saw that on someone's user page and it really tickled me.

Short of advertizing, the best way to recruit and retain would seem to be acknowledging the work of others, especially those IPs that provide useful edits. Often, we just serve them with a templated response and move on, but that often lacks a certain personal touch that can be very gratifying. For instance, being interested in physics I am delighted to be able to ask questions in an effort to point out what might not be clear. What I find disheartening is that many physicists only want to talk to each other, and often refuse to acknowledge that a writer can even help, (often refusing to even respond). It is an incredibly good feeling when they do respond, however.

One thing that Wikipedia seems to overlook is that we are not just editors, but also writers. There has always been an ancient animosity between editors and writers, as no one likes to see their work chopped up, but it might be worth pointing out that good editing makes good writing, chopping out the unnecessary and delivering the full impact of the words.

I'll really have to put more thought into your question, Slrubenstein, so let me mull it over for a while. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

@Editor:Zaereth. You saw it (the above tag) on my talk page. Thanks for the promotion. After our Sarah Palin days, its good to know that I can still tickle you. BTW, your insights here are forwarding.--Buster7 (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Buster. I really appreciate it. Unfortunately, Slrubenstein, on another article, has made it clear that my insight is not welcome here on Wikipedia, and I now find the above comment about needing more editors "like me" to be disingenuous, so at the moment my future on Wikipedia is up in the air. Wikipedia definitely has a problem retaining editors, but has no problem driving them off. Zaereth (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

In the spirit of brainstorming, I'll throw out an idea that has probably been proposed elsewhere, but since I'm a new editor, I'll plead ignorance and charge ahead. As a new editor, there are some things I love about wikipedia, but there are many things that I find daunting. I don't have a realm of expertise (I read a lot, basically), have minimal-to-non-existent web editing skills, and have only the barest idea of how to research and properly source articles.

When I was starting out, I made sure to read as much of the "Welcome to..." materials as possible, but that's a lot of reading, with a very wide breadth of topic matter. There's a sort of a sharp increase in the learning curve between being a complete newbie and being a competent long-term editor. Right now I feel more comfortable correcting typoes, reverting obvious vandalsim, and chipping in on Talk page discussions than I do actually contributing to articles.

One suggestion might be to have a sort of mentorship or intermediate-level FAQ for people who've gotten their toes wet, but may need a bit of hand-holding to get to the next level.Quietmarc (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a very good point. I was very leery of making changes to articles until someone on the dye laser article gave me some help, encouragement, and a little shove in the right direction. Zaereth (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a constructive proposal along the lines of Wikipedia:Mentorship, because it encourages editor participation & collaboration. However the proposal is not without cost, as the burden of mentorship falls on established editors in terms of their time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible suggestions

I have seen many good ideas and concerns expressed here, and have taken some time to think about them. Wikipedia can be a fun place to help out, but few people want a job that doesn't pay, so once it stops becoming a hobby we're naturally going to lose people. The amount of vandalism, infighting, and trivia pushing is daunting, for anyone who knows what an encyclopedia should be knows that it is a summary of knowledge written in a journalistic format, not detailed textbook info or "facts" that reveal nothing about the subject. Some people like vandalism and fighting, (I have a brother who'll argue with me even if I'm agreeing with him), and, from what I've seen, the lack of any rules governing article content, beyond verifiability and reliable sourcing, is very attractive to those who want to provoke a battle, and very detractive to those who put much hard work into maintaining readability, accessability, and accuracy.

I have a few ideas based on some of the stuff I've read here, but not sure which section they best fit in, and so will leave them here on talk.

1) Adding more redlinks is probably a good start to attracting more users, but we don't really let the average reader know what the redlink means. When I first started looking at wikipedia I noticed redlinks, but didn't realize that they were articles I might be able to create. It might be helpful to list something about it, like some of the wikiads that I often see at the top of the page. Or, we could have a little info about it when hovering the cursor over the redlink, (something like: Redlink hovering (create this article!)), instead of simply "(page does not exist)". This might entice users to actually click on the link and create their first article.

In this project space I created room for developing new policies or suggestions to revise other policies. But I neglected to include other ways to implement reforms. Guidelines, for one, such as WP:MOS, also there are essays on how to edit for newbies. I think many of your ideas may not lead to new policies, but could nead to new or revised guidelines or essays. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

2) Creating a friendlier environment will always be a plus. It should be clear policy that personal attacks only make the attacker look bad and should not be responded to at all by the attackee. Others will quickly rush to the defense of attckee, unless they respond in kind, in which case few innocent bystanders will jump into the fray.

3) I personally think that IP users should be limited to editing any article except a BLP. False information, ethnic and sexist slurs, and other such behavior can be very damaging to a person even if only allowed to be in the article for a few seconds. Keeping anon users from editing BLPs should eliminate more than 50% of this sort of vandalism, and encourage more anons to join when they really have something useful to offer.

You are proposing a change to the BLP policy, that all BLP articles should be protected such that only registered editors can edit. This is a reasonable proposal and I think you should throw it out there as one. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

4) Many articles are a jumbled mess, and while the manual of style touches the jist of structure, there should be a more clear and concise reference to what an encyclopedia structure should look like.

In general, this could lead to a change in the essay on how to edit, or augmenting WP:MOS or other style guidelines. In general I think good ideas. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

4a) Content. Besides WP:V and WP:RS, WP:notability should also apply to content. The title should describe plainly what the subject is, and all content should be aimed at answering the question: What is this subject? (As someone mentioned, the fact that, say, xenon flashlamps are mentioned in the movie Andromeda Strain tells us nothing about flashlamps, and therefore is not notable to the article flashtube.)

NPOV says all significant views from notable sources must be included. I think both "significant" and "notable" may need clarification. What you propose could be a revision to the NPOV policy, or the RS policy. I think at those policies you could open discussion as to the diffeence between "significant" and "notable" and why one modifies "views" and the other "sources" - the idea would be to make the language clearer and more consistent. But I think you would want to raise discussions at the appropriate policy pages. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I had thought about something like this myself. Every statement in every article must be sourced from multiple independent notable 3rd-party reliable sources. That would solve a lot of content disputes. It would also wipe out a large proportion of current WP content & seems unlikely to be accepted. Peter jackson (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't think it would necessaily wipe out content, but rather put it in it's correct place, (see 4c). I see it this way, if it's a shirt it should go in the shirt drawer, and a sock should go in the sock drawer. I'd call it wikorganization, but call it significance or relevance, or whatever synonym seems to fit. This, I believe, would actually make information more accessible and abundant. (Personally, I get a bit perturbed when I have to dig through unrelated trivia to find information which I'm seeking, and have never had such problems with other encyclopedias.) Zaereth (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

4b)Structure. As I recently told a physics editor, the basic journalistic structure used in encyclopedias is somewhat of a fractal pattern of writing. The title names the subject, and the lede only answers the question "What is the subject?" An introduction section usually follows, which should answer this question in more depth, getting into the questions what, where, and when, touching on each following section. Further sections in the article go to answer the questions who, why, and how.

Each section should have an introduction paragraph, content, and a summary paragraph, just as each paragraph should have an introduction sentence, content, and a summary sentence. (A fractal pattern, that repeats itself on ever smaller scales.)

4c) Organization. It should be emphasized that because info may not belong in a certain article, it is most likely appropriate for a different article. The question to ask is, "what is this info telling me about?" In the above example, the info is telling us something about the movie, (however useless it may be), and not about flashtubes.

I would call this relevance rather than organization, which many identify with structure. Unless you are getting these from a textbook (which is fine if you cite it). Structure I think belongs in MOS - you can go there, and on the talk page ask people if it belongs there or somewhere else. Relevance probably belongs in NPOV, and you could raise the issue there. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

4d) Proper delivery of info Tell anybody some bad news, (Did you here about Jonny?) and you will get the seven possible questions in this order: What? (He got in a car wreck.) Where? (Just down the road) When? (About ten minutes ago.) Who? (He collided head on with a minivan, driven by some kid.) Why? (Apparently alcohol was involved.) How? (The kid swerved across the center line.) Do you know if he's OK? Do myou know who was drinking? (A journalist never answers the opinion seeking question Do/Does, but leaves that to the primary source.) Delivering the info in this format is what we're all used to, and makes articles more attractive to users, new and old alike.

MOW, I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This old journalistic ideal also helps to keep clear the distinction between opinion and fact. We summarize secondary sources and quote primary sources and experts, and never the other way around. An encyclopedia should be more fact based than opinion.

5) I think a zero tolerance policy for vandals should be in order, as this is one of the most frustrating things about wikipedia. Often times these are simply kids posting a naughty word in an article so they can have a few minutes to laugh about it. Warning templates do not usually work in this situation, (sort of the modern version of "Is your refrigerator running?"). If not a ban, I think a harsh block would be the correct course of action for anyone blanking pages of posting offensive language unrelated to the subject. Helping to curb vandalism will be more attractive to good faith users, and free up time for the recent change patrollers.

Here, bring this up on the discussion concerning banning. Brainstorm a bit and then you can move the discussion to the policy pages concerning vandals. A major problem is people who move from one IP address to another. The standard response is to place a warning on an IP address, which is often folly as it just creates a talk page for an IP address the vandal will likely not use again. And we cannot block IP addresses. I think you need to brainstorm this with people here, under banning or blocking, or you can create a new area for reform specifically on vandalism if you want. Eventually the disussion would move to the policy pages on vandalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

6) There possibly should be a policy along the lines of WP:We heard you the first time, shut up and let others speak. There is a trend on many articles to turn a battle for concensus into a staring contest, where the first one to blink out of sheer exhaustion loses. These are usually two sided arguments where only a few editors dare to engage in, and those who may offer helpful insight dare not. Sometimes unanimity is unobtainable, in which case the more people who get involved the better. It does no good to restate the same argument over and over, just to hear the same rebuttal over again.

Read the sections on the project page concerning "civility" and "incivility" and see if this fits into either one. Also, look at this policy: WP:DE which I think aloready covers this problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

7) And there should definitely be a policy against providing information about a subjects children, even if it has been printed elsewhere. I have been involved in an article where there has been a huge push to publicly lable the subject's grandbaby a bastard, and I would like to see information that may cause harm excluded.

Maybe worth raising in relation to the BLP discusion? A good idea. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

8) The best form of media may get things wrong at some time, and usually a few days time provides more correct and in depth reporting. I think, also, that Wikipedians should strongly be discouraged from pushing info in immediately.

Except of course in article on current events. Then we just have to update them as fast as AP does. But this is a discussion for WP:RS, not here. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can probably come up with some better ideas after this weekend, but will be unavailable for the next two days. Zaereth (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Subsection titles

These discussions are getting rather hard to follow. Could we possibly rename the subsections so that my watchlist directs me to the right one? Perhaps something like Analysis of the problem (Recruiting and retaining) versus Analysis of the problem (BLP enforcement). Zaereth (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. An alternative would be to give each "question" its own project page. Thoughts? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just append (BLP enforcement) or whatever after each title. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I hope I didn't miss any. Zaereth (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist article

Just seen this After the boom, is Wikipedia heading for bust? in New Scientist. Esowteric+Talk 11:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a link in there to Wikimedia strategic planning Esowteric+Talk 12:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia?

I came across this essay, "What is Wikipedia?", on the writer Catherineyronwode's user page. Maybe worth a read? Esowteric+Talk 12:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Development committee: getting the show on the road

Some folk at Wikipedia:Development committee would like to get the show on the road, but every time someone new pops in there to join the discussion and lodges objections, we keep going through a repeat of the storming process and the goal of actually getting the work done seems to keep slipping further away.

Any ideas? Esowteric+Talk 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not need a development commitee. I urge a few people here working on one particular area to focus on generating a proposal for a new policy, or major edit to an existing one, and then take it to the community. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikimedia strategic planning: Call for proposals. Does this also make "Areas for Reform" redundant? Esowteric+Talk 09:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

@Editor:Slrubenstein...Is the above mentioned "call for proposal" site what you had in mind? Or is there some other place you suggest? thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to proposing proposals, I think we should just do what we have always done: anyone can propose a new proposal; advertise it very widely (as with an RfC) and designate a reasonable amount of time for discussion and a vote. When it comes to drafting a new proposal, any editor can do so. This project page was intended to provide a space where any editor could brainstorm with other editors concerning the possibility to proposals specifically meant to addreas areas that some people believe are in neeed of reform. I think it is essential that there be no committee with closed membership. I think it is something to be proud of, that this site has existed for over a week and that people have expressed a range of views without being abusive or making personal attacks. To me it shows that, given a space, editors can have a constructive discussion. But it is up to an editor - any editor - to draw on this discussion to propose a new policy. Any editor has the right to do so. Obviously I think that editor would be wise to draw on the discussion here, or use this space to refine his or her ideas, before doing so.Now, Wikimedia is a bigger beast than Wikipedia and I have no involvement there. But I do not see how Wikimedia's call for proposals makes redundant any discussion for new proposals for Wikipedia. As for getting the show on the road - all I can do is encourage people who have been involved in discussion here to start drafting proposals. If people feel there is no need ... well, whoam I to say? I point out that one of the spaces within this project is to discuss whether Wikipedia needs more committees. I think today was the first time someone actually went to that space to propose something. Let's see what other people think!Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New related projects

Here are a couple of new related projects:

• Wikipedia:Community facilitation (WikiProject)
• Wikipedia: Community Issues
• Wikimedia strategic planning: Issues

Esowteric+Talk 11:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethics for editors and administrators

The essay, Wikipedia:Ethics/Seraphimblade, could be developed further and turned into a policy or guideline. Additionally, ethical principles could be established specifically for administrators. For example, administrators should be impartial when dealing with editors: no favoritism, no unfair blocking of editors with opposing views, etc. --Atomic blunder (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The only ethical principles we apply to administrators ought to be the same ones we apply to editors with only one difference: administrators cannot abuse their tools. Otherwise, there is no difference between administrators and editors. You sau administrators should be impartial, well, do you think editors should be impartial when they deal with others too? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The ethical principles with regards to administrators could focus primarily on the ethical use of administrative tools and the issuance of warnings/threats of intent to use those tools. Most ethical principles, like you say, would apply to everyone. I hope this clarifies my proposal. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is very fair. My own view is that each administrator has to police the actions of other administrators when it comes to abuse of specific administrative powers. A policy or guideline to assist administrators in policing one another would be a very good thing! If you do not mind incorporating my points or phrasing, why not make this a specific area for reform on the project page? (if you want to wait and see what discussion it attracts here first, well, that is understandable) Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

While most ethical principles would of course apply to all editors, i think it is fair to expect Admins to live up to a higher standard of compliance with those principles than other editors. I agree that a specific guideline to help admins keep eachother up to that high standard would be a good idea. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I really do not knot like the language of "higher standard" because it implies admins are in some way above editors when actually they are below editors. What is salient is that admins have responsibiities other editors do not and they do have to be held to specific standard appropriate to those responsibilities. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much difference. Administrators have the responsibility of seeing to it that all WP policies are upheld - therefore the appropriate standard regarding all wp policies is higher for admins. Admins are below editors in the sense that they are supposed to work for them and do the dirty work yes. But they are above editors in the sense that they have more power - and that that power can negatively affect other editors and the community. In order to keep that power in check the community should hold admins up to the highest of behavioural standards. It is like Spiderman´s uncle Ben always said: "with great power comes a great responibility". The implications of denying the fact that admins have more power and therefore should be kept responsible for what they do with it seem pretty dreary to me. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree. It is editors who have the responsibiity of seeing to is that all WP policies are upheld. Look, I am willing to treat the cleaning lady in my office as an equal, but i do not believe she ias above me even though she has the keys to all of the offices, including rooms I do not have access to. It is true that in some - actually pretty rare - cases an administrator can acti immediately to delete a page or block someone. But in most cases, a number of editors on some page - the talk page for an article, or AN/I - have to reach a local consensus in order to authorize an admin to use her tools to block or ban someone. Obviously administrators will be helpd responsible for misusing their tools. But beyond that the comparison with Spiderman falls flat: he derived his power from a radiated spider-bite. Admins receive their ools from the community, and remain answerable to the community. Maunus, I think you are being unfair to me. Where have I ever denied that admins have more powers than editors? Where have I eer implied that? You seem to be responding to me, but then you suggest I have said things I have never said (or suggested). All I said is that admins are below editors. If thee is any hierarchy at Wikipedia - and I wish there were none (wish, but I am neithe blind nor stupid) - but if we want to locate admins in a hierarchy, they are below editors. It does not matter that they have more powers. The powers admins have are purely technical (I can block or delete, i.e. i can do a couple of thins with the Wiki softward that editors cannot). I can. That doe snot mean that I may. The powers i have are purely technical. The 'moral and political power - the power to tell me: "block that user" or "potect this page" is held by editors. That political power is surely a superior kind ofpower than technical power. The president of the United States does not know how to fly a F-16, and isprobably not very good with an M-16. Yet he can order people who are highly skilled in armed and narmed combat, or areal combat ... he can order people who can maneuver a submarine or an aircraft carrier ... he can order them to destroy a city, and he can order them to stop. Who on earth would deny that the pilot of an F-16 has extraordinary powers. But in the United States, I think everyone would agreee that the Pesident if aove him. Having technical powers simply does not mean that one is at the top of a hierarchy. Maunus, do you really believe that if I were to state that the President of the United States is above a Navy captain who pilotes a Tomcat, that I am saying (how dreary) that the Navy aviator has no power? Does this make sense to you? It is not logically necessary, and it is not consistent with our policies which circumscribe how admins ay use their powers. Maunus, having written that I fully support Atomic Blunder's idea of a uideline or policy to guide administrators in policing other administrators who might ause their powers ... did you really think I do not believe that admins have no powers? I really am confused that you now state that I do not believe admins have power. You find thid dreary. How am I supposed to take that comment? Is your feeling dreary a personal attack against me, or just a way of saying that I am not acting in good faith? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is not a personal attack or a lack of goodfaith. We disagree simply, an on a somewhat irrelevant point. I am sorry if you felt that i implied that I characterized your views unfairly, that was not my intention. I was not trying to make it look as if you said that admins have no powers - I was merely trying to show the consequences that would result if someone were to take your argument about admins being below the users to its extreme - I did not intent to imply that you held that view. I realise that you are not saying admins don't have powers, but I do think that you are downplaying the powers they do have somewhat. I don't think admins powers a purely technical. Admin can make decisions that other editors have few ways of changing or challenging - even as far as what content stays and what content goes, who gets banned etc. (technically the consensus decided, but often admins decide what consensus is). I think your attitude is healthy, all admins should see themselves as public servants with responsibilities to carry out the decisions of the community, but sadly that is not always my experience. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - look I think we really agree. To me, one of the greatest threats facing Wikipedia is "hierarchy." Since its founding, some admins thought that they were bette than othes, and today I see users who have created badges as if there were ranks here, and people suggesting that just as adins are over editors, arbcom is over admins. I think this is terrible. But obviously the abuse of power (whether by ArbCom or Admins) is a serous problem. I have seerious concerns about WP:WHEEL which I think was partly designed to provide a check on admin abuse, but has also been ued to prevent admins from using their tools the right way. I standby what i said: it would be great to have a guideline (I think right now a guideline would be more appropriate than policy) to guide admins, and I think the the bigger problem is not admins who abuse their powers but other admins who sit by and allow them to abuse their power. Do you know right now that if an admin unilaterally undoes a block made by another admin, there is a shitstorm? The assumption is that the first admin was right, and we need some complicated process before undoing an admin action. I think we need clearer guidelines as to when an admin can act immediately and unilaterally to undo a mistake (let's call it that) made by another admin. Anyway, we need a guideline to guide admins in policing other admins and preventing abuses of power. We need a guideline that all admins can refer to as a point of refernce, not more bureaucracy, not another commitee. Maybe Maunus and Atomic Blunder can draft scha a guideline. Anyway, I am moving this discussion to the project page since two differetn editors have expressed concern. But you guys shoiuld also check WHEEL to see if it needs reform. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

*I have started a new subpage: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform/Ethical principles. --Atomic blunder (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have started two new subpages:
  • Wikipedia:Areas for Reform/Ethical principles for administrators
  • Wikipedia:Areas for Reform/Ethical principles for editors

Why? Ethics should be the same for everyone, in fact, that is what makes them ethics, the principles apply equally to all. In fact, all Wikipedians are bound to the same ethnical principles, like NPA and AGF. I cannotimagine an ethical standard that applies to some WIkipedians (let alone humans) and not others. The very fact makes it unethical, no? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks. I wanted to chime in here that I think Slrubenstein (talk · contribs) just brought up a good point. There are plenty of behavioral guidelines already, and they should apply equally to everyone (and perhaps "more equally" to admins?). What I see here is additional proof, if any were actually needed, that the Policy and Guideline improvement drive along with renewed activity in WP:PROJPOL are good ideas. Go forth and edit what already exists to make the policies and guidelines more understandable and relevant!
— V = I * R (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Another discussion

FYI: before I realized that this existed I started a similar conversation here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 51#Policy and Guideline improvement drive
— V = I * R (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Top Down vs. Bottom up, and viable approaches

This process is designed to first look at problems, then propose policies, then expects people to follow those policies. This is a top down approach.

This somewhat bypasses the whole concept of wikipedia being run by volunteers, who are going to do whatever the heck they want. WP:BURO ;-) It's a Bottom Up system.

In the end, if people persist with this process as is, pages will be rewritten so that they no longer match practice on the wiki, and they will be more likely to be Ignored than before.

So, how to proceed?

The best way I've found to reform aspects of the wiki is to initiate new projects, -not by writing down a plan and hoping that someone will one day maybe read it - (though feel free to do so if you insist), but to actually figure out what to do, and then *do it*, and then recruit others to join you, etc...

This is not idle theory or anything; we have had wikiprojects die due to excess bureaucracy (such as Wikipedia:Esperanza, Wikipedia:AMA), we've had other projects flourish due to lack of it (WP:PROD, WP:EA), and occaisionally, we've had overly bureaucratic systems reformed (WP:VFD).

Lately, I have the impression that some people believe the entire wiki is one big Esperanza or AMA for them to play their power games in. (I shan't name names).

So here's my proposed plan for this particular project: Figure out an activity that needs doing; make a wikiproject to do that one focussed thing, so that the activity is somewhat isolated (in case it goes boom) and easier to manage. (alternately: adopt an existing wikiproject and attempt reform, though that can be hard!); Then go forth and *do the activity*, all the while recruiting new members. You'll need 5-10 people, preferably across time-zones, to keep the project viable.

You might find that you are lacking people at the moment, that means you'll only really be able to reform one or two areas right now. That'd be a big improvement already! :)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Areas that need improvement atm imho are RFA, DRV, CSD; each due to excess bureaucracy. In the case of CSD, it's actually TOO speedy, often forcing people to create new pages in userspace, instead of being able to build new pages from stub using the wiki-process). Oh, and there are huge swathes of articles that need looking at. We have a vandal-patrol, and a speedy patrol, but for instance until recently, we didn't even have a proper new 'unpatrolled' pages patrol. Or how about a library patrol, where we have people taking a laptop into the library for say half an hour or an hour every week, and going in and sourcing articles? ;)

Talk about "top down" approaches!! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh? What? Going out and doing stuff is suddenly top-down? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Anyways, I'm off to do some coding, I think

No,just your approach. It is a top down aproach. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You prefer leadership by example? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I prefer a space where any and all editors (with no limits) can participate, where if someone has an idea she can see whether others agree, or can improve on it, or whatever, and where, if enough people think an idea is good, they can try to get other editors to support it and if after wide open debate enough people support it they act on it i.e. the approach taken here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And in this process you describe, the "doing" part is very much something that might happen in the end, provided that given conditions are met, correct? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I do nt understand you question. You sugest tat something that is done might also be something that happens, but isn't anything that people "do" something that happens? Also, not sure what you mean by end. If you mean it in some Aristotelian sense, the completion of an action, well, isn't any action completed when the action is completed? How can it be otherwise? And the thing about conditions - if the completion of an act depends on certain conditions, then doesn't it follow logically that those conditions must be met for something to happen? I really have no idea what ou are trying to say. Can you use words more precisely and clearly? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I'll try to summarise your position a second time.

Your approach seems to me to be as follows:

1. First, one or more people make a proposal here
2. then they talk about it with a lot of other people
3. then more people talk, until everyone is done talking.
4. Finally, some group of people actually try to act on the idea, and presumably this act is the writing of a policy proposal(?)

Is this a fair/better characterisation of the process you'd like to see unfolding here? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Partly. First, in (1) you could just as well write "anywhere" as "here." "Here" is just a convenience, as any project page is. Then, for (4) the act is not presumably the writing of a policy proposal - it could be to propose to the general community a new policy, or to go to the talk page of an existing policy and propose a modification of the policy, or it may be to do nothing. What is key is that any and all members of the community can participate in this process from the beginning - that is what makes it bottom-up. Top-down would be if people at stage (1) were (a) limited to some select group of editors. Also, I would say top-down is (b) if the group would just make new policies or changes to old policies without going through the usual process of an RfC or some other process that opens up the decision-making process to include potentially all editors. If conditions a or b existed I would call this top-down. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you seem to have this (for me) odd definition of bottom up that somehow avoids mention of the coal-face . Or at least, you haven't mentioned it 'till now.

To put it in plain english: Can you please tell me where "improve the wiki" shows up in your plan? Is that step 5?

Thanks! --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Coal face?" Maybe you mean "dirt under their fingernails." Well, you know, right now there are many articles where there are peole active on the talk pages who have actually made few Or no edits to the articles, and people at policy pages who are making comments on talk but who have not edited many articles. Are you suggesting some new kInd of page protection, that no one can edit a talk page until they have first made x number of edits to articles? What an interesting idea. Why not suggest it here as a way to solve some problem. But i have to say this seems to me to go against the basic wikipedia philosophy, that anyone can edit any page at any time. Who is to say how much experience one needs editing an article before they can make a positive contribution on the talk page?

Wikipedia is open to all people to edit. I think this site must be too. Personally, I would rather that people brainstorming here also had practical experience editing articles, dealing with arbcom, etc. But as soon as we put some person or group of people in charge of deciding who meets "entry qualifications" and who does not, we have created a hierarcy and a top-dwon structure, yuch.

Now "improve the wiki" do you mean improve the wiki software that makes it possible for anyone to edit? Shouldn't people have very specific technical skills in writing software code to improve wiki technology? Or you you mean something else? Also, can you clarify one thing: do you mean by "improve ..." a motive or an effect? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite ban of administrator by community

I've suggested that the Community ban section of the Banning policy be amended to discuss the indefinite banning of an administrator's use of administrative tools by the consensus of community discussion.[2] The indefinite ban could then be lifted at the discretion of ArbCom. I believe this would be a new procedure. --Atomic blunder (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest putting newest discussions at the top of the project page

I propose we reverse the order of points (on the project page, not on this talk page) and ask people to raise new topics at the top of the page as well.

Perhaps we should set up an archive function, too, so threads that haven't seen any action in a looooong time (say, 6 months) get archived. Thoughts? --JN466 15:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reversed the order so new problems are at the top, and visitors don't have to scroll past miles of old stuff to get to the current issues. --JN466 20:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)