(moved from main page) MickMacNee ( talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are no images on Commons corresponding to these. Peter Damian ( talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Re all that stuff about not knowing of any self-selecting groups; I may be missing something but I think the name you're looking for is MedCom 92.39.206.153 ( talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"It would be as if you sent a suspected criminal to prison and then convene a jury to decide if he or she is really guilty or innocent." Hadn't you noticed? That's actually the normal procedure for serious crimes. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've blanked the page in my user space. End of story Peter Damian ( talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales was quoted by Dekimasu: "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." I see the quote only being valid if the notional group "gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." A self-electing group could quite easily be welcoming to new editors. Binksternet ( talk) 23:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I clearly misjudged the mood on Wikipedia. I have blanked the page (which is in my user space). End of story. You can all go home. Peter Damian ( talk) 21:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with Cenarium's view is that often the community can't be bothered. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is widely believed to have a bias against expertise, and this RfC has raised certain issues in my mind which I think are germaine to that view.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone proposed to set up an association of expert copyeditors, inviting membership only from those who had proved their abilities over a long period by successfully authoring or copyediting articles at wikipedia's highest levels, FA or GA. Suppose also that the sole aim of such an association was to offer assistance to other editors who were being held up by the demand all too common at FAC in particular to find a good copyeditor to help tidy the article up.
My question is this. What would be in wikipedia's best interest? An association of copyeditors that anyone could join or one open only to those who had demonstrated a competence in the field? -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to anyone drawing up a set of agreed upon criteria by which we might create a list of 'experienced' editors that others can call on, they can then be listed or categorised as such. We can even have multiple lists, with different criteria. The current metrics such as list of editors by FA are woefull for picking all-round good editors. I simply don't then see why they need to be orgnised into an active association with goals and objectives. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from main page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
No this absolutely wouldn't work. More power to the administrative community? One of the two fundamental ideas behing my proposal was a Separation of powers. Peter Damian ( talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from main page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I hope Voceditenore (who probably, and understandably, hasn't read all the discussions) will note that:
1. At the time this Rfc was started (19 June), the term 'association' was being dropped and 'group' was to be used instead [5]. This was supported by Peter Damian and PericlesofAthens, with no-one opposed to the change of name.
2. Calling the user-page group 'self-selecting' (yes, I did notice the additional 's' ) or 'self-electing' (? do you go out and repeatedly vote for yourself or something?) or 'self-appointed' (normal English?) confuses the issue. People just signed up in the usual way.
3. The majority of participants made it clear that they did not want to form an exclusive group, see acceptances [6], in particular: Joopercoopers: "This will be a meaningless institution unless it upholds the highest standards of policy compliance within wikipedia." (endorsed by other participants including myself) and my own suggestion (later repeated) to allow "all to join . . . to avoid exclusivity".
So — while I agree with Voceditenore's general drift — I don't think her statement is pertinent to the facts. -- Klein zach 02:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarification. Sorry, I meant self-electing. In any case, I would have thought that the rest of my comment made it quite clear that I was talking about groups where membership was by "invitation-only" from existing members as opposed to completely open groups like WikiProjects. And yes, I did go to the histories to read the pre-blanking versions of the "Established Editors" proposal and its talk page before commenting here. The direction in which that particular group/association/whatever might have gone in is immaterial. The question at the top of this RFC page was a general one about the appropriateness and desirability of self-electing groups. My point remains, while a blanket-ban on such groups is probably inappropriate, they are not particularly desirable because exclusivity and a hierarchical structure (no matter how lofty the goals) lead to a loss of moral authority. Voceditenore ( talk) 05:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Note. MickMacNee has removed this exchange from the Rfc. This is censorship. I don't edit war so I am not going to put it back. Since this text was removed one editor has endorsed Voceditenore statement, presumably without seeing my comment, or for that matter Voceditenore's clarification. -- Klein zach 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from main page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I hope you won't leave Wikipedia. New ideas and new challenges are needed here. I haven't agreed with many of your ideas — sorry about that! — but you've argued your case with integrity. -- Klein zach 09:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: My comment (a minor gesture of human decency) has again been removed from the Rfc by MickMacNee. I'm not an edit warrior so I'm not going to put it back. Censorship undermines the legitimacy of this Rfc. As one editor has just written, "this lynch-mob mentality is not only deeply unappealing, but could have a lot of unwanted consequences." On the nail. -- Klein zach 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from main page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
Query: Allstarecho states: "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!"." I don't remember this — although I took part in the discussion. I've spent half an hour searching for members/block/trouble/rescue etc. here and here. All I can find is this talk page exchange between Peter Damian and two users, John Vandenberg and Peter jackson (who don't seem to have been otherwise involved) — obviously unendorsed by anyone else. Can Allstarecho please provide his main reference? Thank you. -- Klein zach 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
MickMacNee: This should not have been moved from the main page. Removing comments and challenges to statements is censorship. -- Klein zach 22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Note. I replaced this exchange on the Rfc and was attempting to answer Allstarecho and Cenarium, when it was again reverted by MickMacNee. -- Klein zach 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The passage quoted above explicitly says "where there is just cause". Peter jackson ( talk) 10:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've queried the relevance/veracity of statements in this Rfc. Removing my comments (and others) from the statements gives the impression that they've been accepted by everybody as true and accurate. MickMacNee wrote the Rfc question and has tried to persuade other editors to endorse it. Only allowing supporting opinions, removing contrary ones: that's censorship. -- Klein zach 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
<irony>Perhaps the people who refactor RfCs should form a defensive coalition.</irony> Durova Charge! 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It's standard practice as far as I know, and has pretty obvious common sense reasons behind it. Kleinzach, restore everybody's comments if you feel that's best, but don't you dare accuse me of censorship, that is a personal attack, and utterly baseless. If anything, it is your selective restoration of only your comments, presumably on the basis that they are the most important, that is poor behaviour. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, what do you mean by 'Mick wrote the Question and has tried to persuade other editors to endorse it'. That just doesn't make any sense at all. The question is perfectly neutral. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Further evidence that the structure of RFCs are based on the previous ones [11]. No mischief there. Cenarium ( talk) 20:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The following text was written by MickMacNee on 19 June [12] when he filed this Rfc. Everything below was written by this one editor.
This page in a nutshell: Request for comments on self electing groups on Wikipedia, and what your views on it are. A proposal for once such group is currently in progress, currently designated the Association of Established Editors in user space
A request for comment on the concept of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.
- What's the question?
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?
- Background
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:
- There shall be a defined group of Wikipedians within the project (the membership)
- The members of the group shall be elected by its existing members
- The members will be required to sign up to a set of common goals/objectives/principles . . .
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.
- Statement by MickMacNee
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 if 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)
We need to ask two questions:
1. Was MickMacNee's filing in accord with RFC guidelines? Or was it improper? See "In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion."
2. Was MickMacNee attempting to be the equivalent of judge, prosecutor, and jury foreman all at the same time? The text he filed begins "Request for comments on self electing groups on Wikipedia". It ends with: "The formation and operation of any such group on Wikipedia without a clear consensus from the community should be prevented."
Thank you. -- Klein zach 07:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Shakescene, if anybody comes to a particualr Wikiproject in bad faith, then under our existing codes of conduct are (or can be) more than adequate to deal with them, without the need to close off the group. Act on the person, not the system. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Without intending to disrespect the fact that User:Peter Damian has blanked the User:Peter Damian/Established Editors page, there is a single line in an Older version which intrigues me, and I'd like to discuss in a wider context. (I also wish to reiterate that this RFC has clearly moved beyond the original proposed group into a wider general discussion, and hence I'm not challenging Peter Damian's post, rather the general concept).
The line I refer to is :"The criteria for membership includes... Having an established identity on Wikipedia..." (My emphasis).
This alarmed and intrigued me. So what does an "established identity" mean? I am one of the longest serving Wikipedians in existence, yet I ruthlessly maintain a high level of anonymity and aloofness. I rarely engage in discussion, and I do not participate in Wikiprojects, or any other formal/semi-formal associations. I have a user profile yet I estimate that 90% of all of my edits are anonymous as I usually work without logging in. (I have my reasons for this aloofness, which can be discussed elsewhere if required).
So does that mean I do or do not have "an established identity"? If the answer is no, does that mean my value to Wikipedia is somehow diminished or devalued? Should there be any measure of a Wikipedian's value other than the quality of their work? Manning ( talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:AEE. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
(moved from main page) MickMacNee ( talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are no images on Commons corresponding to these. Peter Damian ( talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Re all that stuff about not knowing of any self-selecting groups; I may be missing something but I think the name you're looking for is MedCom 92.39.206.153 ( talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"It would be as if you sent a suspected criminal to prison and then convene a jury to decide if he or she is really guilty or innocent." Hadn't you noticed? That's actually the normal procedure for serious crimes. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've blanked the page in my user space. End of story Peter Damian ( talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales was quoted by Dekimasu: "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." I see the quote only being valid if the notional group "gets in the way of this openness to newcomers." A self-electing group could quite easily be welcoming to new editors. Binksternet ( talk) 23:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I clearly misjudged the mood on Wikipedia. I have blanked the page (which is in my user space). End of story. You can all go home. Peter Damian ( talk) 21:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with Cenarium's view is that often the community can't be bothered. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is widely believed to have a bias against expertise, and this RfC has raised certain issues in my mind which I think are germaine to that view.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone proposed to set up an association of expert copyeditors, inviting membership only from those who had proved their abilities over a long period by successfully authoring or copyediting articles at wikipedia's highest levels, FA or GA. Suppose also that the sole aim of such an association was to offer assistance to other editors who were being held up by the demand all too common at FAC in particular to find a good copyeditor to help tidy the article up.
My question is this. What would be in wikipedia's best interest? An association of copyeditors that anyone could join or one open only to those who had demonstrated a competence in the field? -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to anyone drawing up a set of agreed upon criteria by which we might create a list of 'experienced' editors that others can call on, they can then be listed or categorised as such. We can even have multiple lists, with different criteria. The current metrics such as list of editors by FA are woefull for picking all-round good editors. I simply don't then see why they need to be orgnised into an active association with goals and objectives. MickMacNee ( talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from main page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
No this absolutely wouldn't work. More power to the administrative community? One of the two fundamental ideas behing my proposal was a Separation of powers. Peter Damian ( talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from main page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I hope Voceditenore (who probably, and understandably, hasn't read all the discussions) will note that:
1. At the time this Rfc was started (19 June), the term 'association' was being dropped and 'group' was to be used instead [5]. This was supported by Peter Damian and PericlesofAthens, with no-one opposed to the change of name.
2. Calling the user-page group 'self-selecting' (yes, I did notice the additional 's' ) or 'self-electing' (? do you go out and repeatedly vote for yourself or something?) or 'self-appointed' (normal English?) confuses the issue. People just signed up in the usual way.
3. The majority of participants made it clear that they did not want to form an exclusive group, see acceptances [6], in particular: Joopercoopers: "This will be a meaningless institution unless it upholds the highest standards of policy compliance within wikipedia." (endorsed by other participants including myself) and my own suggestion (later repeated) to allow "all to join . . . to avoid exclusivity".
So — while I agree with Voceditenore's general drift — I don't think her statement is pertinent to the facts. -- Klein zach 02:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarification. Sorry, I meant self-electing. In any case, I would have thought that the rest of my comment made it quite clear that I was talking about groups where membership was by "invitation-only" from existing members as opposed to completely open groups like WikiProjects. And yes, I did go to the histories to read the pre-blanking versions of the "Established Editors" proposal and its talk page before commenting here. The direction in which that particular group/association/whatever might have gone in is immaterial. The question at the top of this RFC page was a general one about the appropriateness and desirability of self-electing groups. My point remains, while a blanket-ban on such groups is probably inappropriate, they are not particularly desirable because exclusivity and a hierarchical structure (no matter how lofty the goals) lead to a loss of moral authority. Voceditenore ( talk) 05:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Note. MickMacNee has removed this exchange from the Rfc. This is censorship. I don't edit war so I am not going to put it back. Since this text was removed one editor has endorsed Voceditenore statement, presumably without seeing my comment, or for that matter Voceditenore's clarification. -- Klein zach 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from main page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I hope you won't leave Wikipedia. New ideas and new challenges are needed here. I haven't agreed with many of your ideas — sorry about that! — but you've argued your case with integrity. -- Klein zach 09:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: My comment (a minor gesture of human decency) has again been removed from the Rfc by MickMacNee. I'm not an edit warrior so I'm not going to put it back. Censorship undermines the legitimacy of this Rfc. As one editor has just written, "this lynch-mob mentality is not only deeply unappealing, but could have a lot of unwanted consequences." On the nail. -- Klein zach 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved from main page. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments:
Query: Allstarecho states: "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!"." I don't remember this — although I took part in the discussion. I've spent half an hour searching for members/block/trouble/rescue etc. here and here. All I can find is this talk page exchange between Peter Damian and two users, John Vandenberg and Peter jackson (who don't seem to have been otherwise involved) — obviously unendorsed by anyone else. Can Allstarecho please provide his main reference? Thank you. -- Klein zach 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
MickMacNee: This should not have been moved from the main page. Removing comments and challenges to statements is censorship. -- Klein zach 22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Note. I replaced this exchange on the Rfc and was attempting to answer Allstarecho and Cenarium, when it was again reverted by MickMacNee. -- Klein zach 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The passage quoted above explicitly says "where there is just cause". Peter jackson ( talk) 10:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've queried the relevance/veracity of statements in this Rfc. Removing my comments (and others) from the statements gives the impression that they've been accepted by everybody as true and accurate. MickMacNee wrote the Rfc question and has tried to persuade other editors to endorse it. Only allowing supporting opinions, removing contrary ones: that's censorship. -- Klein zach 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
<irony>Perhaps the people who refactor RfCs should form a defensive coalition.</irony> Durova Charge! 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It's standard practice as far as I know, and has pretty obvious common sense reasons behind it. Kleinzach, restore everybody's comments if you feel that's best, but don't you dare accuse me of censorship, that is a personal attack, and utterly baseless. If anything, it is your selective restoration of only your comments, presumably on the basis that they are the most important, that is poor behaviour. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, what do you mean by 'Mick wrote the Question and has tried to persuade other editors to endorse it'. That just doesn't make any sense at all. The question is perfectly neutral. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Further evidence that the structure of RFCs are based on the previous ones [11]. No mischief there. Cenarium ( talk) 20:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The following text was written by MickMacNee on 19 June [12] when he filed this Rfc. Everything below was written by this one editor.
This page in a nutshell: Request for comments on self electing groups on Wikipedia, and what your views on it are. A proposal for once such group is currently in progress, currently designated the Association of Established Editors in user space
A request for comment on the concept of self-electing groups on Wikipedia.
- What's the question?
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?
- Background
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:
- There shall be a defined group of Wikipedians within the project (the membership)
- The members of the group shall be elected by its existing members
- The members will be required to sign up to a set of common goals/objectives/principles . . .
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.
- Statement by MickMacNee
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 if 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)
We need to ask two questions:
1. Was MickMacNee's filing in accord with RFC guidelines? Or was it improper? See "In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion."
2. Was MickMacNee attempting to be the equivalent of judge, prosecutor, and jury foreman all at the same time? The text he filed begins "Request for comments on self electing groups on Wikipedia". It ends with: "The formation and operation of any such group on Wikipedia without a clear consensus from the community should be prevented."
Thank you. -- Klein zach 07:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Shakescene, if anybody comes to a particualr Wikiproject in bad faith, then under our existing codes of conduct are (or can be) more than adequate to deal with them, without the need to close off the group. Act on the person, not the system. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Without intending to disrespect the fact that User:Peter Damian has blanked the User:Peter Damian/Established Editors page, there is a single line in an Older version which intrigues me, and I'd like to discuss in a wider context. (I also wish to reiterate that this RFC has clearly moved beyond the original proposed group into a wider general discussion, and hence I'm not challenging Peter Damian's post, rather the general concept).
The line I refer to is :"The criteria for membership includes... Having an established identity on Wikipedia..." (My emphasis).
This alarmed and intrigued me. So what does an "established identity" mean? I am one of the longest serving Wikipedians in existence, yet I ruthlessly maintain a high level of anonymity and aloofness. I rarely engage in discussion, and I do not participate in Wikiprojects, or any other formal/semi-formal associations. I have a user profile yet I estimate that 90% of all of my edits are anonymous as I usually work without logging in. (I have my reasons for this aloofness, which can be discussed elsewhere if required).
So does that mean I do or do not have "an established identity"? If the answer is no, does that mean my value to Wikipedia is somehow diminished or devalued? Should there be any measure of a Wikipedian's value other than the quality of their work? Manning ( talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:AEE. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)