Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/December 2006/Control on staff

Control on staff
Well, today i was looking around our sister project: Wikipedia, and i noticed that te sysops were currupt and a fair amount of members wanted to get rid of most of them. So i reccomend that Wikiversity institute a "Demotion" page, were members can request for any admins wh are not doing their job to be demoted. (P.S. All our current admins seem good, i mean for in the future) Heltec  talk
 * Heltec, it is easy to be good when no hard decisions have to be made. Wikipedia is a huge organization, so it has to make hard decisions on a daily basis. Some admins on Wikipedia even got deaththreats with a description of their real life adresses. Wikiversity is a small organization that didn't even started yet. I don't agree with you that common users should get too much power in demoting admins. The result of this could be that the most politically active users will determine the policy and will chase away many users who are important for the quality of the contents of learning materials and articles.--Daanschr 12:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you happen to have a link to discussion about this on Wikipedia (I presume you meant the English one)? sebmol ? 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * w:WP:RECALL. It's been debated quite heavily on Wikipedia (I mean enwiki unless I indicate otherwise) and eventually rejected as too bureaucratic, although there is still w:Category:Administrators open to recall, which is purely political, rather than practical, and has not once been used for anything other than gloating about what a great administrator you are for subjecting yourself to potential recall. I personally am a strong proponent of lax standards for acheiving adminship (every wiki can use as many admins as it can get!) but that removing adminship status, through recalling or reconfirming, should be equally as easy. On enwiki, we've alternatively made our adminship promotion process ridiculously gruelling and made it equally as dificult to get rid of "corrupt" (or, more commonly, incompetent, lazy, uncivil, and ignorant) admins--only the ArbCom has the authority to revoke a user's adminship status. As the custodianship process on Wikiversity is relatively simple, I would certainly like to propose some form of reconfirmation process, either following some form of timetable (as is done on Wikisource, for example) or at the request of users in good standing. This is sort of an issue that, at the moment, is not particularly pressing on Wikiversity but someday may be. AmiDaniel 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To some extent, this can be codified a little bit later. I might raise a little point that we have to be quite careful when the time comes to do this - we do not want to place ourselves in a situation where we need to overextend the regulatory and compensatory capabilities of the Wiki. --HappyCamper 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True to almost all points. Maby make a 75% vote requirement? That would make it less "Bureaucratish". Heltec  talk
 * The fact is, any system that will be proposed will have its strengths and weaknesses. My inclination is that Wikiversity is too young for us to know which sort of custodian will be most complementary to its cause. --HappyCamper 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And that I could easily agree with. With only 12 admins (or custodians, whatever--it'll take me a while to get used to the new lingo :D), it may be much easier to simply approach complaints of admin abuse on a case by case basis. Wikiversity is still very young, and it may at this point be quite difficult to determine what will work best in the long run, so attempting to "codify" now may prove quite frivolous. So I'll retract my pseudoproposal above and instead recommend that complaints of abusive admins simply be channeled to the Colloquium for community review for now. We can draft an all-out system later on. AmiDaniel 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like desision, We can "Codify" it later, but for now it is probably best to just leave it to open discussion. Heltec  talk


 * That's what I think would be healthiest for now - in my opinion, I don't think Wikiversity has built up a "critical mass" of content to sustain online learning communities yet. That's what we really need at the moment. --HappyCamper 00:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. Let's try to focus on content rather than administrivia. AmiDaniel 00:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I favor a system in which custodianship is "easy come, easy go". If the community trusts a user and   a user is willing to do custodial work then that user should become a custodian. If a custodian does something that hurts the community, there should be a system for getting the custodian to understand the problem and change their behavior. We have Custodian feedback, but it has not been used. If a custodian is no longer trusted by the community, then it should be easy to revoke custodianship. Maybe we should put a note at Wikiversity talk:Custodian feedback reminding us to create a "Demotion" page as soon as there is a serious complaint about a custodian posted at Custodian feedback. --JWSchmidt 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how an admin could be corrupt. Everything is logged and open to public viewing, and if an admin does something wrong or against policy, another admin can just correct it.  The only way that corruption could stand is if all the admins let it.  And corrupt is such a nebulous term.  That doesn't mean that admins can't become uncivil and tedious (there are a few over on enwikipedia I can think of). As to recall, I would say make it penalty based, instead of a voting process.  Voting would just lead to endless trolling. If a custodian violates a policy, bring it to the attention of a bureaucrat, and if it become very bad, they can be desysoped. --Rayc 05:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I mentioned above--admins don't tend to be "corrupt," but rather incompetent and ignorant. I agree with you that voting is evil, so I certainly don't think we should have a structured reconfirmation vote or the like; rather, we just need to ensure that forums for potential "admin abuse," such as Custodian feedback and the Colloquium stay open such that problems with administrators can be addressed. Unfortunately, Bureaucrats do not have the technical ability to desysop anyone--users can only be desysopped by stewards, so bringing complaints to them is frivolous and gives the cabalist illusion that there's some higher power structure making all of our decisions. For now, let's just deal with problems of admin abuse on a case-by-case basis, of which we've yet to have a single case :). AmiDaniel 05:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be important that wikiversity remain as much as possible as one community. If wikiversity breaks up into compartments, then strange things may happen.--Hillgentleman|User talk 05:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's odd, I thought that Bureaucrats had the power to both make and take away the admin power. Seems strange that it's only a one way function.--Rayc 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It used to be that crats could give and take away sysop and crat permissions, but changes were made some time ago after someone apparently went mad on enwiki and started desysopping everyone (I was a very young Wikipedian at the time and not aware of it). I choose not to question, as everytime I do, I get called bad names :). For now, the Bureaucrat giveth only whilst the Steward both giveth and taketh away :D. AmiDaniel 07:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What seems like "administrivia" to one person might seem like sensible planning for the future to another person. Anyone who is concerned about having a system in place to deal with custodian problems should take a look at Custodianship. --JWSchmidt 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What information is that link intended to provide? --HappyCamper 17:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he wanted to point out a proposal for a process to handle problems with custodians. sebmol ? 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to (belatedly) pitch in and say that I think that we most definitely need feedback processes - both about content, and people (in general, not just custodians). Would it make most sense to start a single Request for comment page, or should it be broken into 'categories' (as it were)? I think that without feedback processes about the way we're working we won't be able to continue to learn and to make Wikiversity a truly beneficial and inclusive place for people to participate. I'm not sure how (if at all) this is different from the idea of having feedback available for all learning resources that the 'user' (ie teacher who uses them in class, self-study student etc.) can tell us how useful (or not) the material was for them. I think this could easily be an automatic subpage of all pages (eg. Introduction to research/feedback). Should these forms of feeback be the same, and if not, how should they be differentiated? Cormaggio talk 12:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have a suggestion: let's put a rough draft of an idea out and see what happens. Suppose we pick a random custodian, and have this custodian look at another custodian's actions, etc...It doesn't need to be a surgical analysis, but something useful. Even asking if they feel contributing to Wikiversity lately feels fulfilling might be a revealing question. Imagine it like a routine, regular doctor's checkup. Once that's done, that custodian picks another custodian, and "passes the torch along". And this continues indefinitely. We might even make a little icon for this, so others know if they have had their "checkup". The idea is to reduce (and ultimately) eliminate the stigma associated with getting "negative feedback". It would be nice to institutionalise from the beginning of this project that there are no such things as "mistakes" - they are meant to be made, otherwise, there would be no learning, and no wisdom sharing. --HappyCamper 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My experience on enwiki has shown dispute resolution to be unfortunately quite ineffective (or, at best, ridiculously slow) at resolving disputes--typically, only those that go before the ArbCom are resolved. Dispute resolution only works if there are competent participants who are willing to compromise--which is very rare--or if there's someone with a big stick to enforce decisions. Nonetheless, I do think having some venue such as RfC would be a good idea--if anything, just to give the illusion that there's some sanity in how we settle disputes :D. We may, however, consider deviating from the enwiki model as far as we possibly can and pursue ideas such as enforcing resolutions where consensus is reached, but one or two refuse to budge. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an important point. The sturdiness of people to stick with their views was one of my main presumptions when i founded the WikiProject to improve debating on Wikipedia. I have a few solutions for this problem within the context of the disputes on the contents of articles. The most important solution is that people have to defend their views by showing evidence in sources. Of course this will not take away all disputes. Sources can contradict eachother for instance. A second solution is to organize debates which should make clear which views exist on an issue. There is no need to make a choice between views. The content of the debate should become more important then the article that is written on a subject. What should be kept from Wikipedia is the inclusiveness. Next to Usenet, Wikipedia is one of the less censured websites on the internet (this is my experience). Conflicts arises between users but hardly ever between a user and the authorities of Wikipedia. I am in favour of organization, but only in a decentralized fashion. The organization could be in the first place aimed at facilitating, but may not interphere in the contents of learning material or articles.--Daanschr 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm weary about importing experience from en.wikipedia to here wholesale - Wikiversity is not a place to fix the problems on Wikipedia. The justification for guidelines can be inspired from it, but it has to be shown that it is inherently beneficial to this project. Dispute resolution on Wikis as a sole mediator of disputes in general does not work because a Wiki is not a piece of technology designed to facilitate it - the burden of properly resolving disputes will remain, regardless of the approach or official policy in place. Disputes do not resolve themselves nicely, because a well-meaning user of a public Wiki does not intend to participate for the purpose of being instructed on how to behave. This is why compromise is not spontaneous. Additionally, when we attempt to regulate these users with say, probation, the Wiki has taken on the role of being a babysitter, which of course it was never meant to do. I agree with some of the points given above, some I do not. Debates are a good idea, but so long as the conversations remain cohesive. When a debate invites too much concurrency (as in too many things happening at once), nothing lucid comes about quickly. I am not sure what qualifies as decentralized administration. Granted, I'm a bit heartend that you mentioned about this "illusion" -- if I might carefully venture a daring statement: written policies are dead, they do not live. It's the people carrying out policies that live, and matter. Written policy is symbolic of a functioning enterprise. This is the opinion I hold as of this edit; but as usual, I might revisit and revise these ideas in a month or so. :-) I must say, that I am bit reluctant to leave this thread, but I'm trying to distance myself from the Colloquium for a while, for I have yet to add the materials to Wikiversity that I intended to from the beginning...we shall see. --HappyCamper 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right in many respects. When i made my contribution on 1 december, i doubted wether i would give (so much) attention to the WikiProject i started on Wikipedia.
 * Wikiversity has another goal than Wikipedia, but more importantly it has another culture. I think that the culture of an organization is at least as important as the rules. I think expertise and commitment to a project are more important than the rules. What is needed for regulation will present itself in time.
 * I wanted to introduce the debating system on Wikipedia, but it could be something for Wikiversity as well. One of the main projects of Wikiversity is introducing interlingual debate. That is where i would like to give a contribution. I wanted to solve a lack of lucidity by appointing chairmen when a certain number of participants have been reached in a debate. A form of decentralization would be that the collective of participants to a single debate may decide how the debate is organized (a chairman or not, the rules of the debate, preventing chaos). A debate will take a month and not longer, so each month whole new groups of debaters would come into existence. This would prevent overly bureaucratic control and would still have a form of regulation. Introducing quality stamps given by certain groups of experts can ensure a division between high-quality debate and low-quality debate. Each scientific discipline or other group can give these quality stamps. A problem with these plans is that i am jumping too quickly into conclusions. Inventing solutions to problems that have not occured yet, and could very likely not occur at all. My plans and ideas could change in time as well.--Daanschr 13:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For education, it would be needed to have teachers with authority and clear views on certain aspects of knowledge. My proposition on the organization of debates should be seen seperately from the organization of courses and learning materials.--Daanschr 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think WIkiversity should facilitate many different approaches to education and discussion. We are not limited to just replicating (in wiki format) traditional approaches to education and discussion. Sure, it is great when an expert can step forward and act with authority to guide a wiki-based collaboration. However, in many cases the first wiki participants for topic areas are not experts. We need a system that allows everyone (even in the absence of a participating "authority") to constructively participate in Wikiversity. The power of wiki is that even a group of non-experts can work together to do great things.....they might even become experts in the process. --JWSchmidt 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New thread started, see, below.