Wikiversity talk:Community Review/CR process discussion

Noticing consensus
I'm not seeing any disagreement with the proposition that a second should be required for a fully active CR. --Abd 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this move to talk space appropriate?
Moulton wrote @Abd: Your comments add up to over 1300 words.)  Thank you, Moulton,.

Mu301 removed my entire section, placing the comments here in Talk. That's poor process, rather, if the section were too long, replacing it with a reference to talk would be more respectful. Better to make a reference to history, because culttering up talk with long comments also is a problem. By deleting the whole section, the contribution was effectively eliminated. It should be up to readers whether they want to read longer contributions or not, evidence subpages, etc. I know that both Mu301 and SBJ are allergic to long comments, but depth of comment is an important part of deliberative process. A long comment like mine should not be part of a "report," which is somewhat, as I see it, the goal of a user space committee CR. However, it's part of the process of getting to a report. I'll fix it. --Abd 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please try to follow the directions and keep your post within the limits. Thanks, Moulton. --SB_Johnny talk 22:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with above) By the way, I didn't notice the section word limit in the header. Goes to show. Tunnel vision, sometimes, comes with age. Sorry. This word limit is more draconian than routine practice on Wikipedia, by the way. Clerks will refactor, as to limits, but will first allow the user to themselves refactor. --Abd 22:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's a limit most won't have to worry about (the WP arbcom limit is 500, not 700). Make sure to leave yourself room for replies, if you want to do that! --SB_Johnny talk 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bull. ArbComm divides a case into multiple pages, the filing section limit is 500 words, only to show that the case should be accepted. Then the evidence page allows 1000 words or even more, and there is no section limit on the Workshop page. Read my full response at --Abd 23:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just Collapse Him
Title: Just Collapse Him Artist: Montana Mouse Composer: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and Barsoom Tork Associates YouTube: Come Together &mdash; The Beatles  Here come old Abd, he come wall-o-texting He got joo-joo eyeball, he one holy smoker He got words down to his knees Got to be a joker he just do what he please  He wear no shoeshine, he got toe-jam football He got monkey finger, he shoot coca-cola He say "I know you, you know me." One thing I can tell you is you got to be free Just collapse him right now, don't you see?  He bag production, he got walrus gumboot<BR> He got Moulton sidetracked, he one viral smacker<BR> He got feet down below his knee<BR> Bore you in his talk page, you can feel his disease<BR> Just collapse him right now, don't you see?<BR> <BR> He roller-coaster, he give frequent warning<BR> He got muddy water, he got wobbly kilter<BR> He go on and on and on, you see<BR> Got to love Cold Fusion 'cause it's so hard to see<BR> Just collapse him right now, don't you see? <BR> <BR><Small> CopyClef 2011 John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and Barsoom Tork Associates.<BR> Resurrection Hackware. All songs abused.</Small>

The word limit and the purpose of the limit
Are there any tools that will easily report word count? Character count is easier, but ... it should be displayed characters, not total characters. One of the devices for layering comment, providing easy access to depth, is collapse. Speaking as one who has had to deal extensively with this issue! Links are also a lot of characters, in the full wikitext, but only a few characters in display.

The goal is coherence and easy access. The same characters as an almost literal wall of text and as formatted text with bolding of key sentences are of very different effect. Excessive text is its own "punishment," in the end, if people don't read it. I understand the need for limits, because excessive text in a section can make the page seem forbidding. But it's easy to handle with the technique I just demonstrated using page history, and that it's a complete section makes that easy. Please allow users some amount of time to refactor a long section, okay? --Abd 23:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * When I have a need to count words I copy and paste the plain readable text from the preview feature of the wv edit page to a text editor in another window and use the features of that editor to check word count. Many word processors include a word count or document statistics button in the menu. This eliminates counting of the text in an url or other wiki markup. Though in practice - most of the contributions are below half the limit, so there is not much of a need to bother. I doubt if anyone will care if someone hits ~710 or such, but please don't stuff text into collapse boxes on this page, that is very much not in the spirit of the experiment that we are conducting. Of course! Take your time to refactor a long section. We're in no real hurry, there are no deadlines before which you need to post your comments. If at any time you feel rushed, just post a note that you'd like some more time. As an aside, I thought that you made some great suggestions at Wikiversity_talk:Community_Review and I very much look forward to hearing which points you think are most important to consider for improving the process for future reviews. --mikeu talk 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Why not collapse boxes? What is the "spirit" that is defeated? A collapse box is a level up in visible importance from a reference to a subpage or to history. It's more convenient for the user who is interested, the text is already downloaded. If SBJ doesn't want users to use collapse boxes, it's his process at the moment, but he should put the instructions at the top, so that I or others don't waste time using stuff that will have to be changed. I'm assuming that a link to extended or original discussion is okay, nothing was said about that.
 * Yes, I'm now using a word processor now to count the words.
 * In normal deliberative process, as you hint, respect is extended to people to complete their comments, that's why "cloture" takes a supermajority, and in wiki process, time is required to collect consensus, a pile-in doesn't reflect it, for example. --Abd 18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Attention is a scarce resource. —Moulton 13:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. Power over community attention is how oligarchies maintain authority. To move beyond that, without tossing the benefits of some level of trusted authority, has been my work for thirty years. I know how to manage polemic, but most of the time that's not what I'm doing. --Abd 14:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Managing" a scarce resource by squandering it is not my idea of a wise managerial practice. —Moulton 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One more comment about collapse boxes. If a user puts material into a collapse box, the material shouldn't be necessary to make a point, only, perhaps, to substantiate it with evidence or detail. TANSTAAFL. If I put truly important assertions into collapse, I'd be suppressing my own points. Should a closer read what's in collapse? Not necessarily. The points should be clear without the collapsed material. But if a closer doubts the point being made, or if there is a conflict of claims, i.e., User A says, "This happened, evidence in collapse," and User B says, "No it didn't happen, there is no evidence," then maybe it's necessary to read the evidence, and to judge the further comments of A and B accordingly. However, if the situation has already been investigated by the closer, and the closer accepts that the statement of A is reasonable on the face, it may not be necessary to read it. A good close will find on all the evidence and relevant arguments, confirming or rejecting or analyzing, so that people know the basis for a decision. --Abd 18:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think adding longer bits to the talk page is better than collapse boxes... the boxes themselves are a bit distracting, but also bear in mind that more and more people are accessing things via devices other than traditional desktops and laptops (which still have to load the text even when it's collapsed). I'll upate my comment for this in a bit, but actually I think the talk page is much better for threaded discussion anyway (they serve that purpose on mainspace pages as well). --SB_Johnny talk 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How about content-space is used to keep track of an issue and the evidence only, and the talk-space is used to discuss the issue and for proposing solutions? -- dark lama  19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe a hybrid of that... over the past day or so there's an "emergent property" coming up where people ask additional questions, and then other people add those questions to the top, and after that people seem to be making short responses to each question. I think that's maybe an unforeseen and very positive result of the word limit. --SB_Johnny talk 19:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For prior discussion on the page size issues that SBJ mentions see: Guides for page creation? and Page size warning. --mikeu talk 19:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "I understand the need for limits, because excessive text in a section can make the page seem forbidding" That was one of the motivations for why I wanted to try this experiment. I have a theory that we are not getting as much participation from the broader community as we could be getting, in part due to pages that "seem forbidding." In addition to excessive length I also think that structural issues have discouraged participation. It is still early but I am encouraged by the results so far.--mikeu talk 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To get back on topic. How about 20 words per sentence and 5 sentences maximum response per question/issue? The limit is than relative to the number of questions/issues brought up. A fixed maximum may be ridiculously small if there are more than a few questions/issues to address. -- dark lama  23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, 2 things on that: first, keeping a limit on the number of topics in a particular review would help maintain better focus as well as give the review a finite goal for closure. Second, I think breaking it into a bunch of small limits would make it overly complicated, and also limit one's options on where to focus (for example, one person might want to make a longer statement about issue C and D, but shorter statements about A, B, and E). --SB_Johnny talk 14:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ideally, yes, a particular review is confined to a relatively small topic. This review is more like a brainstorming session, where a lot of ideas might be brought up, and, my opinion, this is better in user space with the user being an ad-hoc chair. I suggest running this like a committee, and the goal of this CR, in situ, is to come up with a report on CR problems and how to fix them. That report will be mentioned in further process. If consensus is clear on something, we (any one of us!) might implement it simply by editing Community Review. We do not need community review if we have consensus. Non-participants here retain their rights, but, if they disagree with what we do there, we should invite them to read the "committee report" and to add comments if anything is missing. We can reconsider. Consensus can change. What must be truly concise and clear would be the report, not necessarily the process that gets us there. The report will refer to the process as needed. It will not be on the same page, I assume. It will be a consensus document, i.e., we should, to the extent possible, all agree on what's in it. Given that a whole universe of arguments can be incorporated by reference, give that what will be reported is the consensus -- or attributed variety of opinion after discussion -- high consensus should be possible.


 * My own comments here, being refactored as needed, will ideally become my own report on the issues raised, after discussion. I will delete all the "process stuff," like the comment about who originated questions 5 and 6, though reference to it may remain in some form. --Abd 16:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that CRs should perhaps start in userspace and only "move over" when they've garnered interest? If so, that seems a very interesting idea.
 * Not sure what you mean by deleting though. --SB_Johnny talk 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Start in user space. In fact, process possibility: user starts CR in own space, functions as default "chair." Can refactor, can request participants to stay away if the user, sole discretion, considers them disruptive. A user may invite specific participation, no harm in "canvassing" here. A user may announce such a CR and invite participation on the Colloquium. Such a user-controlled CR cannot make any decision for the community, as such, because of participation bias as a possibility, and because the user in control might be biased. When the user thinks it ready, the user may then propose a move to mainspace, perhaps even announcing this in the Colloquium. Another regular user must make the move. To place a notice in the site message takes an independent custodian concurring that the CR is worthy of wide attention. That's analogous to an assembly chair placing a committee report on the assembly agenda.
 * Many CRs, started this way, would never make it to the main CR space, and of those which do, only a few might be announced. If a genuine consensus forms in a CR, but no custodian is willing to put it in the site message, a consensus is still a consensus, if formed openly, out of individual control. We just saw a desysop based allegedly on a consensus formed in a CR that was not listed in the site message. (I claim that consensus wasn't shown there, but a 'crat decided that there was, which is how we make such decisions. If no 'crat would act on a CR, but it did, reasonably, show consensus, and after enough time -- two weeks was suggested at meta -- then a steward might act.)
 * So if a user starts a CR in CR space, that would be promptly moved to the user's space, until it gets a second. (Participation would not be considered a second, we will want an explicit certification.)
 * I believe that this is efficient, simple, clear, and safe. It is not censorship, it is, simply, orderly process. If a CR can't get a second, it's almost certainly frivolous. If it can't get a sysop to add it to the site message, it's very unlikely to represent community consensus. (all sysops?).
 * I do recommend that any desysop CR be placed in the site message, upon the approval of a custodian, and that this start the 7-day clock. Any CR moved to CR space should ultimately be closed, to the extent possible. The CR page should classify CRs as "seconded, active," and as "announced, active." Only active CRs should be listed. User space CRs should not be listed, but there might be a category linked on the CR page. So, hey, I'm starting User:Abd/Community Review/Abd. Open for business, to review my probationary custodianship and all the nasty stuff I supposedly did.... Thanks, folks. --Abd 17:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "deleting" means that I'll delete my comments in my section, if they aren't relevant to the overall work, in the end, and needed for that. This flat-out doesn't work with threaded discussion, that's why this separate section format is such a good idea. Thanks. --Abd 17:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think most people can stay within my proposed limits without consideration for the limits, which is my intention 12. I think schools can be trusted to know more about this than us. Maybe those limits could be what to aim for, with some flexibility for going a little over. If someone has less to say about an issue or question than they aren't likely to exceed the limit. When someone has more to say, the same problems exist with any limit. I think any limits should be able to be reasonably judged by eye and not require software to double check. -- dark lama  19:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you use Firefox, try the Word Count Plus add-on. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks! --SB_Johnny talk 14:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not compatible with Firefox 3.6.x, apparently. --Abd 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)