New way to discourage newcomers invented

[Apoc 2400]

Checking the Village Pump today I discovered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#autoconfirmed_for_unassisted_article_creation

This is an ingenious new way of getting rid of newcomers while officially
welcoming them to contribute. A newcomer who wants to create a new article
would be sent through a 7+ page procedure with no less than 21 buttons, a
number of dead ends and trap doors and about 2500 words of instructions for
a typical path from start to end.

Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and nominate "Wikipedia is not a
bureaucracy" for deletion?

This email describes my impression. See for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIZ2
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Apoc 2400 wrote:
> Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and nominate "Wikipedia is not a
> bureaucracy" for deletion?
>  
"Bureaucracy" is a fairly helpful description of how Wikipedia actually
functions, as far as management style is concerned. Decisions are taken
according to practice that has been codified to some extent (in some
areas, to a large extent). If you want to get something done, knowing
where to go and how to apply is at least half the battle. But my reading
of WP:BURO would make the comment "A procedural error made in posting
anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for
invalidating that post" central to its intention. I say we don't delete
that.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ryan Delaney]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Apoc 2400 wrote:
> > Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and nominate "Wikipedia is not
> a
> > bureaucracy" for deletion?
> >
> "Bureaucracy" is a fairly helpful description of how Wikipedia actually
> functions, as far as management style is concerned. Decisions are taken
> according to practice that has been codified to some extent (in some
> areas, to a large extent). If you want to get something done, knowing
> where to go and how to apply is at least half the battle. But my reading
> of WP:BURO would make the comment "A procedural error made in posting
> anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for
> invalidating that post" central to its intention. I say we don't delete
> that.
>
> Charles
>
>
>

Wikipedia has no "management style" because there are no managers. We should
not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word.

That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that "We are a bureaucracy, but if
you cut some corners we'll look the other way." That's not what it says at
all. It says "We are NOT a bureaucracy" and so "Knowing where to go" should
be much, MUCH less than half the "battle" of contributing to Wikipedia.

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Ryan Delaney wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews@...
> <mailto:charles.r.matthews@...>> wrote:
>
>     Apoc 2400 wrote:
>     > Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and nominate
>     "Wikipedia is not a
>     > bureaucracy" for deletion?
>     >
>     "Bureaucracy" is a fairly helpful description of how Wikipedia
>     actually
>     functions, as far as management style is concerned. Decisions are
>     taken
>     according to practice that has been codified to some extent (in some
>     areas, to a large extent). If you want to get something done, knowing
>     where to go and how to apply is at least half the battle. But my
>     reading
>     of WP:BURO would make the comment "A procedural error made in posting
>     anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for
>     invalidating that post" central to its intention. I say we don't
>     delete
>     that.
>
>     Charles
>
>
>
> Wikipedia has no "management style" because there are no managers. We
> should not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word.
>
> That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that "We are a bureaucracy, but
> if you cut some corners we'll look the other way." That's not what it
> says at all. It says "We are NOT a bureaucracy" and so "Knowing where
> to go" should be much, MUCH less than half the "battle" of
> contributing to Wikipedia.
>
> - causa sui
>

I'm sure that styles without central managers feature in management
books, though. In fact I know they do. The question is whether it is
more helpful to insist that the reality is a purist wiki/collaborative
style of work with everything freeform, or to look the actuality in the
face every now and again. The way we operate is a hybrid of pure wiki
editing with other stuff. And being in denial about the scale issue
seems head-in-the-sand to me. A wiki with 10,000 pages is a big wiki.
And we have 1000 times that, one way and another.

Charles



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ryan Delaney]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Ryan Delaney wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Charles Matthews
> > <charles.r.matthews@...
> > <mailto:charles.r.matthews@...>> wrote:
> >
> >     Apoc 2400 wrote:
> >     > Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and nominate
> >     "Wikipedia is not a
> >     > bureaucracy" for deletion?
> >     >
> >     "Bureaucracy" is a fairly helpful description of how Wikipedia
> >     actually
> >     functions, as far as management style is concerned. Decisions are
> >     taken
> >     according to practice that has been codified to some extent (in some
> >     areas, to a large extent). If you want to get something done, knowing
> >     where to go and how to apply is at least half the battle. But my
> >     reading
> >     of WP:BURO would make the comment "A procedural error made in posting
> >     anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for
> >     invalidating that post" central to its intention. I say we don't
> >     delete
> >     that.
> >
> >     Charles
> >
> >
> >
> > Wikipedia has no "management style" because there are no managers. We
> > should not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word.
> >
> > That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that "We are a bureaucracy, but
> > if you cut some corners we'll look the other way." That's not what it
> > says at all. It says "We are NOT a bureaucracy" and so "Knowing where
> > to go" should be much, MUCH less than half the "battle" of
> > contributing to Wikipedia.
> >
> > - causa sui
> >
> I'm sure that styles without central managers feature in management
> books, though. In fact I know they do. The question is whether it is
> more helpful to insist that the reality is a purist wiki/collaborative
> style of work with everything freeform, or to look the actuality in the
> face every now and again. The way we operate is a hybrid of pure wiki
> editing with other stuff. And being in denial about the scale issue
> seems head-in-the-sand to me. A wiki with 10,000 pages is a big wiki.
> And we have 1000 times that, one way and another.
>
> Charles
>
>

That's the point made in the OP. Apoc2400 thinks that, since the reality is
that Wikipedia has become greatly bureaucratized (he and I think that's a
bad thing, you think it's a good thing, but that's beside the point) then we
should stop kidding ourselves and get rid of WP:BURO. I want WP:BURO to stay
because I want to have strong resistance to instruction creep and any
complications of the editing process that make content contribution more and
not less difficult for new users.

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Charles Matthews]

Ryan Delaney wrote:
>
> That's the point made in the OP. Apoc2400 thinks that, since the
> reality is that Wikipedia has become greatly bureaucratized (he and I
> think that's a bad thing, you think it's a good thing, but that's
> beside the point) then we should stop kidding ourselves and get rid of
> WP:BURO.
No, I do not think it is a "good thing" - where did I say that? I think
it is important not to be confused between discussions of what is really
going on, within Wikipedia as it actually operates, and discussions at
an idealised level (normally only backed up with some anecdotal if
slight evidence). The other point I would like to make is that the
problem really comes with people who think you make a bureaucracy work
by being bureaucratic, when the opposite is true. WP:BURO is basically
prescriptive, not descriptive (I'm against people who weasel by saying
policy is basically descriptive not prescriptive whenever that suits
them), and it tells us not to do that bureaucratic thing of using
sensible procedural features in an obstructive fashion.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:
> Wikipedia has no "management style" because there are no managers. We should
> not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word.
> That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that "We are a bureaucracy, but if
> you cut some corners we'll look the other way." That's not what it says at
> all. It says "We are NOT a bureaucracy" and so "Knowing where to go" should
> be much, MUCH less than half the "battle" of contributing to Wikipedia.

If you are right, that would mean that 1) Jimbo, 2) a Foundation that
implements and prioritizes all new development, 3) a Board that
does... something, 4) an Arbcom that tries hard (to tar and feather
only the right people), 5) OFFICE, 5) and 6) a small army of
<s>dorks</s> administrators (empowered, apparently to make
un-reviewable 2-week blocks)... 'do not necessarily qualify as
"managers."' On that basis its just simple logic that 'WP does not
have' a '"management style"' and 'WP is not a "bureaucracy"'.

But we see cases all the time, though, where an entity says it is not
something that it is, or is something that its not - North Korea for
example. And that's to say nothing of the fact that *any entity that
has *some notion of 'getting things done' likewise has some notion of
'managing things,' and thus has some certain concepts of "management."
Hence anything with 'some concept of management' will likewise have a
"management style." This is true regardless of how how chic (geek
variation) it is to just say something 'there is no management style
(there is only wiki).'  (Note: The geekword "wiki" does not suffice in
describing the Wikipedia's actual purpose, scope, or processes, let
alone its systems).

So while WP may not have any "managers," nor does it implement a
"management style," it still has elements that at least very very
strongly resemble each, though perhaps badly. And of course even a
taco stand with one employee can develop some kind of "bureaucracy"
issues, so I don't see the point in continuing any pretense that
suggests otherwise here. In fact, according to the traditional
"canonical" terminology, Wikipedia doesn't even have "editors" - it
only has "users."

-Stevertigo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[sarble montegue]

There are 2 things wrong with this discussion.

1) someone replied to the proposal:
 "Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves ..."

Perhaps next time, consider the phrase: "It only takes one (1) reply,
to turn a rant (1) into an argument (2)".

2) That page, [[WP:NOT]], is an abstraction of the workings of a
community of 20,000+ participants.
If you encounter Different individuals, you'll get Different results.

It is difficult to discuss Zen writings with Literal-mindedness, or to
understand them in isolation: below the section WP:BURO is WP:ANARCHY.
Any step away from Anarchy, begins Bureaucracy.



> (there is only wiki).'  (Note: The geekword "wiki" does not suffice in
> describing the Wikipedia's actual purpose, scope, or processes, let
> alone its systems).

exactly.

Quiddity

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ryan Delaney]

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews@...> wrote:

> Ryan Delaney wrote:
> >
> > That's the point made in the OP. Apoc2400 thinks that, since the
> > reality is that Wikipedia has become greatly bureaucratized (he and I
> > think that's a bad thing, you think it's a good thing, but that's
> > beside the point) then we should stop kidding ourselves and get rid of
> > WP:BURO.
> No, I do not think it is a "good thing" - where did I say that? I think
> it is important not to be confused between discussions of what is really
> going on, within Wikipedia as it actually operates, and discussions at
> an idealised level (normally only backed up with some anecdotal if
> slight evidence). The other point I would like to make is that the
> problem really comes with people who think you make a bureaucracy work
> by being bureaucratic, when the opposite is true. WP:BURO is basically
> prescriptive, not descriptive (I'm against people who weasel by saying
> policy is basically descriptive not prescriptive whenever that suits
> them), and it tells us not to do that bureaucratic thing of using
> sensible procedural features in an obstructive fashion.
>
> Charles
>
>

It sounds to me like you're both making a similar point: that is, there's no
reason to deny the reality that Wikipedia does have some bureaucratic
elements. In the worst case, this leads to a rather Kafkaesque situation
where people who are actually obstructed by bureaucracy being told by a
bureaucrat that "Well, as you can see from our policies, this is not a
bureaucracy." In this case it helps to have 20/20 vision about the fact that
Wikipedia is, in fact, bureaucratic, because recognizing the problem is half
of solving it.

If this is your view, then you probably would agree with a less polemical
version of what I took the OP to be saying: Wikipedia *is* bureaucratic, and
we ought to be honest about that.

- causa sui
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Samuel Klein-2]

> > > Wikipedia has no "management style" because there are no managers. We
> > > should not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word.
>

Right.


> > That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that "We are a bureaucracy, but
> > > if you cut some corners we'll look the other way." That's not what it
> > > says at all. It says "We are NOT a bureaucracy" and so "Knowing where
> > > to go" should be much, MUCH less than half the "battle" of
> > > contributing to Wikipedia.
>

Absolutely.  And for 90% of contributors, that is happily the case.

However, on the fringes; somewhat active pages, pages with at least one
editor conflict, new pages, anon and newbie contributions, policy pages,
pages somehow turned up for deletion : lots of different policies,
aggregated over many years, come into play.


> face every now and again. The way we operate is a hybrid of pure wiki
> editing with other stuff.

Yes.

> And being in denial about the scale issue
> seems head-in-the-sand to me. A wiki with 10,000 pages is a big wiki.
> And we have 1000 times that, one way and another.

This argument isn't so simple.  90% of editors of our 10 million pages
manage with fully distributed groups of 1-2 editors, wikiprojects of a dozen
people, and a hundred automated bots and scripts.  They dont need to know
more than a couple of policies and guidelines, and can basically just look
at a similar page elsewhere to figure out how to contribute.

10% of a project this size is still a lot, and that produces all of the
light and noise.  but it's not 'in denial' to say that our core policies of
not being bureaucratic, ignoring rules where necessary, and being rightfully
indignant when it seems bureaucracy rules the day in some corner of the
project*, are what should guide 90% if not 100% of work on the Projects.

SJ

* even to the point of getting together and fixing that as an acknowledged
problem :)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[stevertigo-2]

Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney@...> wrote:

> It sounds to me like you're both making a similar point: that is, there's no
> reason to deny the reality that Wikipedia does have some bureaucratic
> elements. In the worst case, this leads to a rather Kafkaesque situation
> where people who are actually obstructed by bureaucracy being told by a
> bureaucrat that "Well, as you can see from our policies, this is not a
> bureaucracy." In this case it helps to have 20/20 vision about the fact that
> Wikipedia is, in fact, bureaucratic, because recognizing the problem is half
> of solving it.
>
> If this is your view, then you probably would agree with a less polemical
> version of what I took the OP to be saying: Wikipedia *is* bureaucratic, and
> we ought to be honest about that.

Well, 1) no we aren't just a taco stand and 2) yes we do have more
than one employee, so certainly its a no-brainer that we have apsects
which can rightly be called "bureacratic." But this is quite different
from saying that "Wikipedia is bureaucratic." It is not. WP simply has
a mix of open and closed control systems that each have bureaucratic
aspects.

-Stevertigo
'Your faith was strong but you needed proof,
You saw me bathing on the roof...'

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l