Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/August 2016

Obtaining members

So far, we have (relatively) few members, despite my advertisements in various venues. I think the problem might be that few people actually believe that real change can ever happen. When we start launching high-profile RfC, perhaps some proposal supporters will join the project. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 22:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

We need a major proposal that has a good chance to succeed. Should we advertise the project on each RFC we support? Should we make a banner or something, or should we just mention it in the text of the RFC? KSFT^C 00:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think PC1 protection for recognized/vital articles would have a good chance. I don't think we should so obviously make our RfCs an advertising campaign, but I do think we should mention the project. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also note that I've begun work on an op-ed for the Signpost which will summarize the issues currently facing Wikipedia and suggest solutions for them. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Another possibility is that some potential members either do not believe that Wikipedia needs substantial change, or do not believe that the changes aimed at by the project are ones that they urgently want to see.

For example, if editors are happily working away believing that the content they are adding is adequately verifiable, they might not be enthusiastic about changes to "promote more verifiable content" if they think this might render some of their own content unacceptable in some way. Or they might just not see lack of verifiability as an important current problem. Many editors presumably use the content they add themselves as the touchstone of what is sufficient sourcing and verifiability -- and after all, if they did not believe their own content was sufficiently verifiable, they probably would not be adding it.

It is true that there is a substantial segment of editors who express dissatisfaction with "the noticeboards", but many of those editors also seem to visit those noticeboards regularly, whereas others do not and take little interest in noticeboards or even in deletion processes. Many previous reform efforts seem to have focused on how to enable more editors to gain access to various forms of user rights (new or existing), which is a completely different tack from aiming to "ensure fair protections for all editors". This might be indicative of where many editors' priorities for change lie. Even if their priorities are misguided. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In line with the above, reform requires that many editors change their behaviors, in many cases long-standing behaviors, which were previously accepted or at least tolerated by the community. They will vigorously oppose any such changes, and that opposition will always be enough to kill a consensus for change (I think a clear 75% support would be required, and that is exceedingly unlikely). This is an inevitable result of self-governance, and it's why I don't hold much hope for significant reforms. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors may not think there is any problem because they have not seen the evidence. If they see the evidence, perhaps they will realize there is a problem. Things are rather bad when a website is forced to admit its own complete unreliability and when research experts ridicule it. As for improving sourcing, it is actually new users that add the majority of unreferenced content. New users do not frequently take interest in RfCs, so it would mostly be experienced users voting in them. I have absolutely nothing against new users, and in fact I am trying to think of ways to improve the environment for them. I simply think we need to do a better job of educating them from the beginning and finding a way to enforce quality without being unduly harsh.

Concerning the noticeboards and deletion processes, it is critical that these somehow be reformed. Deletion and mob behavior at the noticeboards are some of the leading causes of poor editor retention, and if Wikipedia does not improve editor retention, it will not survive. Currently, a great deal of its editors are still from the early days, and these are bound to retire with time. At the moment, there is much ignorance concerning these matters, and it is necessary that many more editors become fully aware of these issues.

In reply to Mandruss, it is not true that 75% is required for change. Look at the ECP RfC, for instance. Option C has only a little more than 60% support, and everyone is saying that it is passing overwhelmingly. At most, I would agree that 60% is sufficient to pass a policy change. But 75% is completely unreasonable; we are simply making policies for a website, not laws for a nation.

Finally, it is not actually crucial to have a massive project for reform. Of course, I would very much like to have more members so that there can be collaboration and brainstorming, but in reality any one user or a small group can draft proposals and launch major RfCs. I did the vast majority of the work in RFA2015, for instance, with help from Esquivalience. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

In my view en-wiki's greatest need for reform is in the area of the toxic editing environment. My one attempt in that area crashed and burned with 18%, so I think even 60% is highly unlikely in the behavior area, at least until many of the old-timers have retired, like in about 20 years. The loud, mean-spirited ones have driven off most of the more mild-mannered ones over the years, and they now own the place, or at least enough of it to easily kill reforms in that area.
I hesitated to comment at all after reading "a place where reform-supporting editors can discuss reforms" in the lead of the project page. I doubt that pessimism is what you want to hear, so I'll stop cluttering your thread with it. Best of luck with your project.
You may be interested in my mini-essay at User:Mandruss#Culture of disrespect. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Clay Shirky covered the problems with groups that avoid handling the difficulties with growth, in his talk "A Group is its own Worse Enemy". It's been pointed out numerous times in discussions regarding the problems with English Wikipedia. Either editors aren't reading it or think somehow Wikipedia can escape the pitfalls that all community/social software has faced. (The talk in fact discusses how projects fail to learn lessons from their predecessors.) Eventually the rules and structures put into place to avoid hierarchies become more onerous than having a hierarchy; either one can get enacted, or the community will shrink to a smaller size. isaacl (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)