This page in a nutshell: This was a request for comment on self electing groups on Wikipedia. Consensus was against such groups being formed. MickMacNee said that self electing groups would be against the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, and Dekimasu quoted Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles in which Jimbo Wales said "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites...". There was negligible support for self electing groups, though Juliancolton felt there wasn't a big problem. |
A request for comment on the concept of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.
Are self-electing groups on Wikipedia appropriate? Are they against policy? Which policy? What should be the role of such groups in Wikipedia? What are the benefits of such groups to Wikipedia? What are the downsides to such groups on Wikipedia? Can self elected groups help us in our primary goals better than any of our existing processes?
A consensus view on the issue of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.
There is currently a proposal in Peter Damian ( talk · contribs)'s user space, to establish an Association of Established Editors (located at the time of this posting at User:Peter Damian/Established Editors). Details are fluid at present, but the basic idea is as follows:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
NOTE: For transparency, users who have already accepted a nomination to the The Association of Established Editors (located at the time of this posting at User:Peter Damian/Established Editors) should declare this in their statement.
The community already has elections for some groups, such as administrators, arbitrators and bot approvers, but these elections are open to all registered Wikpedians (subject to certain restrictions designed to simply combat vote fraud). As far as I am aware, the community currently has no active self-electing groups of the nature of that proposed for the AEE.
The community already has a notion of defined membership lists, usually as a method of registering a common interest in a Wikiproject. As far as I am aware, none of these bodies have the power or remit to prevent good faith Wikipedians from becoming members, and member conduct and group activity within those projects falls entirely within the usual policies.
Any group of editors on Wikipedia that elects its own membership and has its own goals and objectives is fundementally against the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, and is contrary to our five pillars, most importantly, what the Wikipedia community is not.
Any system that promotes the idea of vested contributors is fundementally wrong. Accepting the need to assume good faith about any new proposal for Wikipedia, a self-electing self-serving membership body is fundementally divisive by nature, and as such could represent a greater, and possibly unmanageable, threat to etiquette than the actions of individuals alone, and could be conducive to the fostering of an unwelcoming, or downright hostile, attitude in members and non-members alike.
The formation and operation of any such group on Wikipedia without a clear consensus from the community should be prevented.
MickMacNee ( talk) 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
As far as I know, this isn't a big problem at all. That said, I agree with PericlesofAthens. Further research/discussion should take place before blanket-banning such groups. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I'd be careful with this as it's broadly construed. Wikiprojects could be considered "self electing groups". Many of them go around inviting people to join a project. As for the particular "group" that brought this about, I'm against that one, just like Esperanza. If there ever was a real "cabal" on Wikipedia, User:Peter Damian/Established Editors is it. Last I saw it, it had some requirement that essentially said "if one of our members gets blocked or in trouble, we all come to the rescue!" (per this diff, very first paragraph and especially this diff, very last sentence]). That's not acceptable. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
A question really: are there any wikiprojects that have closed membership? This would be my principal objection. I have no problem with open-membership voluntaristic groups dedicated to specific projects. I just didn't think any were exclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of falling into Argumentum ad Jimbonem, Jimbo wrote a Statement of principles in 2001. It is prominently linked from Wikipedia:Five pillars. This statement of principles posits, in part, that
This principle is violated by the creation of any self-electing group that limits its membership based on length of stay, number or type of contribution, editing style, or having "established an identity" on Wikipedia. Creating any such group without a "narrowly tailored objective" is a further violation of the principle. Any group that intends to "negotiate blocks or bans, represent [its members] at arbitration, and support [them] in content issues" or engage in block voting is headed towards improper WP:TEAMWORK. Thus, the association under construction would violate long-established behavioral standards. Dekimasu よ! 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia. Gangs and other such nonsense are for kids and teenagers, not sensible people writing an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as both an editor and a thuggish security guard, I don't like the idea of closed groups either. Wikiprojects are open to any interested editor, and the technical groups such as rollbackers and administrators were created through a process of community consensus, with entry requirements defined by the community. I'd recommend waiting until the 20-odd members of this "association" decide what exactly they are intending to do, and then open an RfC on that specific formulation, to see if this is acceptable to the community. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Remember Esperanza? For those unfamiliar with it, take a look at its page as it exists now. Esperanza was conceived with the loftiest goals and best intentions, but it just doesn't work out, and now it's gone. To quote from the essay on its page: "existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times." We don't need clubs or cabals; it's not consistent with the ways things are done. Cool3 ( talk) 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The agenda of the proposed group, the list of "Membership commitments", is still in flux. Why are people expecting the worst from the group when it's not fully defined yet? I can imagine beneficial results from this association, including the development in each of its members a wider purview regarding previously unfamiliar Wikipedia content. I see the focus of the association as being centered on reliable content creation with appropriate weight. This is a fine goal! If it doesn't bog down in legalistic jockeying, the group could well become a project-spanning cross-pollinator, increasing the editing skill, wisdom and breadth of its members while adding materially to the value of the encyclopedia.
The Jimbo quote used earlier, "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers" would only be violated if the notional group "gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." The group could conceivably offer help and guidance to new users. Binksternet ( talk) 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
A blanket-ban on self-selecting groups is probably ill-advised and may have unintended consequences. However, so is creating a separate tier of exclusive "associations", especially in project (as opposed to user) space. If thoughtfully named and formulated (definitely not easy, but possible), there's no reason why a
Project cannot fulfil the same goals that an invitation-only "association" might legitimately have. It can be open to all editors provided they are willing to commit to its goals, principles, and code of conduct A project can also have lists (but not "ranks") of veteran editors amongst their members (arrived at by consensus of the members) as well as lists of expert editors with their area of expertise and qualifications. It would be highly unlikely that people would join a project where they did not share its goals and commitments and refused to sign on to them. The two groups that have "real power" in Wikipedia (Administrators and Arbitration Committee are rightly closen by a process open to all Wikipedians. An "association" which limits its membership via an exclusive process has no power, yet risks losing its most powerful attribute – moral authority. (The Mediation Committee is an anomaly and shouldn't be cited as a precedent for either pro or con. It's part of the formal dispute resolution process, has no powers of sanction and its remit and membership criteria are part of Wikipedia policy.)
Voceditenore (
talk) 11:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
We have Wikipedia:Five pillars.
Two of them are: Wikipedia is free content and Wikipedia has a code of conduct. We routinely WP:BLOCK users who deliberately violate these, and WP:BAN users that habitually violate them.
Our two most important pillars are Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We don't block block or ban people that habitually violate WP:NPOV, even though habitually violating that completely undermines our entire project.
If people habitually violating WP:NPOV were subject to sanctions by uninvolved admins, we would eliminate a lot of long-term problems simply since all the loud, abrasive, and endless battles surrounding them would be eliminated over time. Just a single one-sentence tweak to WP:NPOV:
+ Users who repeatedly create deliberate violations of WP:NPOV in articles may be subject to editing restrictions.
It wouldn't require a major new set of policies, self-forming groups, or anything silly like that. Would it ultimately require Arbcom to weigh in on content? Maybe, maybe not. Is it needed long-term, to do this? Absolutely.
Users who endorse this summary:
We have heard various statements above how this group could have been a help to Wikipedia and how there are various problems within the wiki. The statements have ranged from POV problems to not being able to trust other editors due to the fact they cannot be verified.
The group, who caused this RFC to be opened, wanted to create a "trust" system where those editors that could be "trusted" would be part of the group. This newly forming group's leader/founder mentioned this and also how certain editors had more standing then other editors when telling the membership about himself/his objectives: "a lobbying or advocacy group that focuses attention on the frustrations that those actually writing, as opposed to playing whack-a-mole with vandals or new-page patrolling, actually have to put up with day-to-day." [1]
Such a group fundamentally would not have had the over all editor population's interests in mind. If a group was for the entire population, then it would have been inclusive, not exclusive. Any group that is fully inclusive and open to anybody and everybody who wanted to join should be encouraged. Any group that is exclusive and closed to other editors should be discouraged no matter how lofty the goals of the group are.
Also, it should be asked, if such editors wanted to help improve Wikipedia, then why had not not used the village pump, created an RFC like this, or brought it up in some other Wikipedia forum for the community at large to comment? Brothejr ( talk) 01:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Individuals shall be allowed to organize themselves into any groups they wish to, by any means they wish to use. If an individual by editing Wikipedia violates any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, whether they are acting in their own interests or to further the interests of a group they are a member of, they shall be subjected to warnings, blocks, bans, etc. by their fellow editors as described in those same policies or guidelines. 207.34.229.126 ( talk) 19:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I think this whole Request for Comment needs to be recast in terms of behavio(u)r rather than structure.
I'm not keen on closed or self-co-opting groups in general, but I don't like an abstract ban on them, either. What if (hypothetically speaking) the inclusionists' or exclusionists' associations, or the Article Rescue Squadron, found themselves deliberately swamped by new opponents whose only purpose was to sabotage their discussions and activities? Shouldn't they be able to take measures to protect themselves, such as imposing membership conditions? What if a group of editors did genuinely feel (rightly or wrongly) that some policy or the execution of some asserted policy was being applied to them in an unfair or vengeful way? (Or that they weren't being sufficiently protected by some other policy from libel or vandalism?) Shouldn't they have a right to organize themselves as perceived common victims of what they see as unjust?
What shouldn't be accepted, however, is some of the potential common activities mentioned in previous statements. For example, packing Talk page, items-for-Deletion or Administrators' Noticeboard discussions with those who weren't previously directly involved (which might crudely called "distributed meat-puppetry"); enforcing any kind of trade-union, factional or Bolshevik discipline; agreeing to vote together ahead of a poll; "trusting other established editors’ expertise" in a field of which you're personally ignorant in preference to the expertise of other editors, etc.
I haven't followed the history of the proposed Association of Established Editors closely enough to give more detail, but that's why I think a completely new discussion, straw poll or Request for Comment about specific questionable behavio(u)r, what would make it open to question, and the best remedy to apply, is more appropriate. —— Shakescene ( talk) 04:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Responded on talk page. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What do we mean by "on Wikipedia"? Reading quickly, I didn't see a single reference above to Meetups or real-life groups of any kind, including m:Wikimedia New York City. I ask because I've been thinking of either joining the DC meetups or starting a series of meetups in North Carolina, depending on interest. But all the comments above reinforce something I already knew: any meetup of Wikipedians with intentions over and above eating pizza had better be purer than Caesar's wife, because they're going to have to deal with many of the reservations people have about cabals expressed above.
Users who endorse this summary:
Add your statement, leave one copy of the section at the bottom.
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
This page in a nutshell: This was a request for comment on self electing groups on Wikipedia. Consensus was against such groups being formed. MickMacNee said that self electing groups would be against the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, and Dekimasu quoted Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles in which Jimbo Wales said "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites...". There was negligible support for self electing groups, though Juliancolton felt there wasn't a big problem. |
A request for comment on the concept of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.
Are self-electing groups on Wikipedia appropriate? Are they against policy? Which policy? What should be the role of such groups in Wikipedia? What are the benefits of such groups to Wikipedia? What are the downsides to such groups on Wikipedia? Can self elected groups help us in our primary goals better than any of our existing processes?
A consensus view on the issue of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.
There is currently a proposal in Peter Damian ( talk · contribs)'s user space, to establish an Association of Established Editors (located at the time of this posting at User:Peter Damian/Established Editors). Details are fluid at present, but the basic idea is as follows:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
NOTE: For transparency, users who have already accepted a nomination to the The Association of Established Editors (located at the time of this posting at User:Peter Damian/Established Editors) should declare this in their statement.
The community already has elections for some groups, such as administrators, arbitrators and bot approvers, but these elections are open to all registered Wikpedians (subject to certain restrictions designed to simply combat vote fraud). As far as I am aware, the community currently has no active self-electing groups of the nature of that proposed for the AEE.
The community already has a notion of defined membership lists, usually as a method of registering a common interest in a Wikiproject. As far as I am aware, none of these bodies have the power or remit to prevent good faith Wikipedians from becoming members, and member conduct and group activity within those projects falls entirely within the usual policies.
Any group of editors on Wikipedia that elects its own membership and has its own goals and objectives is fundementally against the open and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, and is contrary to our five pillars, most importantly, what the Wikipedia community is not.
Any system that promotes the idea of vested contributors is fundementally wrong. Accepting the need to assume good faith about any new proposal for Wikipedia, a self-electing self-serving membership body is fundementally divisive by nature, and as such could represent a greater, and possibly unmanageable, threat to etiquette than the actions of individuals alone, and could be conducive to the fostering of an unwelcoming, or downright hostile, attitude in members and non-members alike.
The formation and operation of any such group on Wikipedia without a clear consensus from the community should be prevented.
MickMacNee ( talk) 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
As far as I know, this isn't a big problem at all. That said, I agree with PericlesofAthens. Further research/discussion should take place before blanket-banning such groups. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I'd be careful with this as it's broadly construed. Wikiprojects could be considered "self electing groups". Many of them go around inviting people to join a project. As for the particular "group" that brought this about, I'm against that one, just like Esperanza. If there ever was a real "cabal" on Wikipedia, User:Peter Damian/Established Editors is it. Last I saw it, it had some requirement that essentially said "if one of our members gets blocked or in trouble, we all come to the rescue!" (per this diff, very first paragraph and especially this diff, very last sentence]). That's not acceptable. - ALLST✰R▼ echo wuz here @ 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
A question really: are there any wikiprojects that have closed membership? This would be my principal objection. I have no problem with open-membership voluntaristic groups dedicated to specific projects. I just didn't think any were exclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of falling into Argumentum ad Jimbonem, Jimbo wrote a Statement of principles in 2001. It is prominently linked from Wikipedia:Five pillars. This statement of principles posits, in part, that
This principle is violated by the creation of any self-electing group that limits its membership based on length of stay, number or type of contribution, editing style, or having "established an identity" on Wikipedia. Creating any such group without a "narrowly tailored objective" is a further violation of the principle. Any group that intends to "negotiate blocks or bans, represent [its members] at arbitration, and support [them] in content issues" or engage in block voting is headed towards improper WP:TEAMWORK. Thus, the association under construction would violate long-established behavioral standards. Dekimasu よ! 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia. Gangs and other such nonsense are for kids and teenagers, not sensible people writing an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as both an editor and a thuggish security guard, I don't like the idea of closed groups either. Wikiprojects are open to any interested editor, and the technical groups such as rollbackers and administrators were created through a process of community consensus, with entry requirements defined by the community. I'd recommend waiting until the 20-odd members of this "association" decide what exactly they are intending to do, and then open an RfC on that specific formulation, to see if this is acceptable to the community. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Remember Esperanza? For those unfamiliar with it, take a look at its page as it exists now. Esperanza was conceived with the loftiest goals and best intentions, but it just doesn't work out, and now it's gone. To quote from the essay on its page: "existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times." We don't need clubs or cabals; it's not consistent with the ways things are done. Cool3 ( talk) 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The agenda of the proposed group, the list of "Membership commitments", is still in flux. Why are people expecting the worst from the group when it's not fully defined yet? I can imagine beneficial results from this association, including the development in each of its members a wider purview regarding previously unfamiliar Wikipedia content. I see the focus of the association as being centered on reliable content creation with appropriate weight. This is a fine goal! If it doesn't bog down in legalistic jockeying, the group could well become a project-spanning cross-pollinator, increasing the editing skill, wisdom and breadth of its members while adding materially to the value of the encyclopedia.
The Jimbo quote used earlier, "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers" would only be violated if the notional group "gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." The group could conceivably offer help and guidance to new users. Binksternet ( talk) 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
A blanket-ban on self-selecting groups is probably ill-advised and may have unintended consequences. However, so is creating a separate tier of exclusive "associations", especially in project (as opposed to user) space. If thoughtfully named and formulated (definitely not easy, but possible), there's no reason why a
Project cannot fulfil the same goals that an invitation-only "association" might legitimately have. It can be open to all editors provided they are willing to commit to its goals, principles, and code of conduct A project can also have lists (but not "ranks") of veteran editors amongst their members (arrived at by consensus of the members) as well as lists of expert editors with their area of expertise and qualifications. It would be highly unlikely that people would join a project where they did not share its goals and commitments and refused to sign on to them. The two groups that have "real power" in Wikipedia (Administrators and Arbitration Committee are rightly closen by a process open to all Wikipedians. An "association" which limits its membership via an exclusive process has no power, yet risks losing its most powerful attribute – moral authority. (The Mediation Committee is an anomaly and shouldn't be cited as a precedent for either pro or con. It's part of the formal dispute resolution process, has no powers of sanction and its remit and membership criteria are part of Wikipedia policy.)
Voceditenore (
talk) 11:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
We have Wikipedia:Five pillars.
Two of them are: Wikipedia is free content and Wikipedia has a code of conduct. We routinely WP:BLOCK users who deliberately violate these, and WP:BAN users that habitually violate them.
Our two most important pillars are Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We don't block block or ban people that habitually violate WP:NPOV, even though habitually violating that completely undermines our entire project.
If people habitually violating WP:NPOV were subject to sanctions by uninvolved admins, we would eliminate a lot of long-term problems simply since all the loud, abrasive, and endless battles surrounding them would be eliminated over time. Just a single one-sentence tweak to WP:NPOV:
+ Users who repeatedly create deliberate violations of WP:NPOV in articles may be subject to editing restrictions.
It wouldn't require a major new set of policies, self-forming groups, or anything silly like that. Would it ultimately require Arbcom to weigh in on content? Maybe, maybe not. Is it needed long-term, to do this? Absolutely.
Users who endorse this summary:
We have heard various statements above how this group could have been a help to Wikipedia and how there are various problems within the wiki. The statements have ranged from POV problems to not being able to trust other editors due to the fact they cannot be verified.
The group, who caused this RFC to be opened, wanted to create a "trust" system where those editors that could be "trusted" would be part of the group. This newly forming group's leader/founder mentioned this and also how certain editors had more standing then other editors when telling the membership about himself/his objectives: "a lobbying or advocacy group that focuses attention on the frustrations that those actually writing, as opposed to playing whack-a-mole with vandals or new-page patrolling, actually have to put up with day-to-day." [1]
Such a group fundamentally would not have had the over all editor population's interests in mind. If a group was for the entire population, then it would have been inclusive, not exclusive. Any group that is fully inclusive and open to anybody and everybody who wanted to join should be encouraged. Any group that is exclusive and closed to other editors should be discouraged no matter how lofty the goals of the group are.
Also, it should be asked, if such editors wanted to help improve Wikipedia, then why had not not used the village pump, created an RFC like this, or brought it up in some other Wikipedia forum for the community at large to comment? Brothejr ( talk) 01:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Individuals shall be allowed to organize themselves into any groups they wish to, by any means they wish to use. If an individual by editing Wikipedia violates any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, whether they are acting in their own interests or to further the interests of a group they are a member of, they shall be subjected to warnings, blocks, bans, etc. by their fellow editors as described in those same policies or guidelines. 207.34.229.126 ( talk) 19:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I think this whole Request for Comment needs to be recast in terms of behavio(u)r rather than structure.
I'm not keen on closed or self-co-opting groups in general, but I don't like an abstract ban on them, either. What if (hypothetically speaking) the inclusionists' or exclusionists' associations, or the Article Rescue Squadron, found themselves deliberately swamped by new opponents whose only purpose was to sabotage their discussions and activities? Shouldn't they be able to take measures to protect themselves, such as imposing membership conditions? What if a group of editors did genuinely feel (rightly or wrongly) that some policy or the execution of some asserted policy was being applied to them in an unfair or vengeful way? (Or that they weren't being sufficiently protected by some other policy from libel or vandalism?) Shouldn't they have a right to organize themselves as perceived common victims of what they see as unjust?
What shouldn't be accepted, however, is some of the potential common activities mentioned in previous statements. For example, packing Talk page, items-for-Deletion or Administrators' Noticeboard discussions with those who weren't previously directly involved (which might crudely called "distributed meat-puppetry"); enforcing any kind of trade-union, factional or Bolshevik discipline; agreeing to vote together ahead of a poll; "trusting other established editors’ expertise" in a field of which you're personally ignorant in preference to the expertise of other editors, etc.
I haven't followed the history of the proposed Association of Established Editors closely enough to give more detail, but that's why I think a completely new discussion, straw poll or Request for Comment about specific questionable behavio(u)r, what would make it open to question, and the best remedy to apply, is more appropriate. —— Shakescene ( talk) 04:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Responded on talk page. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What do we mean by "on Wikipedia"? Reading quickly, I didn't see a single reference above to Meetups or real-life groups of any kind, including m:Wikimedia New York City. I ask because I've been thinking of either joining the DC meetups or starting a series of meetups in North Carolina, depending on interest. But all the comments above reinforce something I already knew: any meetup of Wikipedians with intentions over and above eating pizza had better be purer than Caesar's wife, because they're going to have to deal with many of the reservations people have about cabals expressed above.
Users who endorse this summary:
Add your statement, leave one copy of the section at the bottom.
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.