Debate:The mobocracy

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by Bob_M.

Following discussion on Talk:Richard M. Nixon the usefulness of the mobocracy has been questioned.

There would seem to be two issues:

1. Is the mobocracy (still) a good way to run the site.
2. If not, is there anything better.--Bob^{bing up} 05:47, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Introduction

I'm going to repeat my old comment, because I thought it sounded nice and dramatic. Plus it sums up my view very neatly:

I'm not querying the fact that we currently use that system, I'm just gearing up to saying it's a stupid way of running things. It's inadequate; it gives those in authority no idea of their duties or limitations, and it breeds squabbles when the ideas of how people expect things to work somehow conflict with each other. Pink_{(Future schismatic)}

We are supposed to post here, aren't we? Pink_(Talk) 05:45, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I still don't know (unless you answered below) what you think is borken about how this place isn't run? ħuman 00:29, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

The part I've just bolded and italicised. Pink_(Bold!) 00:36, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes.--Bob^{bing up} 05:47, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

History

If we think back a little bit, the term "mobocracy" was originally imposed on us by certain people, the most important of whom shall remain nameless. Like "fag", "dyke" and other similar epithets, it was adopted and it's meaning co-opted by the, er, mob. We we're, as AK says, never a mobocracy as such (except as RW 1.0 perhaps). Our rules have generally worked well, even in HCM. My 2 cents.-- -PalMD ^{--4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain} 16:01, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Another objection

I would contend that whatever Rationalwiki:Community Standards may claim, RW is not a wp:mobocracy at all, unless we want to adopt our own little private definition of what that is. Rather, I view RW as functioning much like an early medieval tribal monarchy. (Stay with me, please).

• For one thing, we have rules - quite a lot of them, in fact. Many of these are written down, but the most important ones are not - they're customary laws, or as RW:CS puts it, "things are done around here the way they are done around here".
• Secondly, again unlike a mobocracy, we do have a permanent "leader", since Trent effectively wields unlimited power through his control of the server. But in the best tradition of an idealized tribal monarchy, he chooses not to use that power, working instead through the "advice and consent" of the population, i.e. the editors.
• Finally, it is clear that unlike a mobocracy where the individual members of the mob are effectively anonymous - one could even say that a mob is defined by the anonymity of its members - the RW editors are clearly not. There are certain editors with higher profiles than others, and some with more influence than others. This again is comparable with a tribal monarchy where members of the population or the "hird" enjoy different levels of status, depending on achievements, seniority or other factors.

--AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:20, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

is the mobocracy a good way to run the site?

Yes

• Well, it's worked so far. I know that there are times when it's all a bit much but, in the eleven months I've been a RWian it's provided interesting debate and lots of lulz. After all, we may be a mob but we're a rational mob. Silver Sloth 05:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
• It appears as though there are three methods of conflict resolution:
  • Both participants discuss, and one or the other cedes the point. This can occur under any regime, but it's the ideal.
  • Both participants continue to disagree. One of them isn't as persistent or as interested, and so they give in. The other person wins by default through longevity.
  • Both participants disagree, and other people get involved. Votes are taken eventually and discussion continues. Usually a decision is reached.

While these processes can break down, this is usually just a failure of one of the parties to adhere to a spirit of rationality. Rationality calls for a reasoned discussion and then a majority vote, and that should be the appropriate approach to conflicts by all.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 06:03, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

• I find that quite persuasive Tom - though it does depend on all of us behaving rationally.--Bob^{bing up} 0606, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  • • I don't think "rationally" has to equal "calmly," but I guess that's beside the point. I don't think any of us can be counted on to behave either calmly or rationally in all cases. I mean, I like the current way of doing things, and I don't think things should change. However, Headless Chicken Mode would never occur if we could all maintain a cool head. That, said, I do have an honest question: What have been the lasting repercussions of an HCM event? I'm not sure, but it seems as if the desire to change the way we do things is directly related to avoiding and/or resolving HCM situations. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 07:01, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

There have been occasions when users have left. Frequently, though not always, they come back. However I suspect that another consequence of HCM episodes is that survivors learn (1) not to take themselves too seriously and (2) that they should remember that other people also have strong opinions.--Bob^{bing up} 17:25, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

If RationalWiki ever reaches the second "tipping point" TMT mentioned (see talk) HCMs will have far more serious consequences. The "mob" will be so widely spread that its consensus won't have any meaning to individual editors, and so whatever order is imposed will seem to be personal attacks. To illustrate this point, can you imagine what would happen if a large wiki like Wikipedia tried to run things by our "rules"? Pink_(Sink) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

• Personally, having been on this site for the limited time I've been here, I like the way things are running. Operations seem fairly smooth, and I have encountered only limited conflict. Sure, we're all going to bicker now and again, but rational and relatively like-minded people do that from time to time. Speakerface ^punkrock 09:08, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
• I agree with Speakerface. I have not been part of the RW community for very long (most notably I have been absent for the major conflicts and drama that have been sited on this page), but the system seems to be working just fine. Our community seems by and large to be made up of people who care not only about being rational but also about being reasonable, and who don't take anything too seriously. Contrast this with CP. Aside from Andy, Bugler, Conservative, Karajou, Ed Poor, Jinx and Joaquin, everyone seems to be miserable. They live in constant fear of the banhammer, intruding on someone else's turf and being labelled a librul subversive. I think that the respective systems affect these outcomes, and I much prefer our community.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:00, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

No

• "The only way to describe how things are done around here is with the tautology that things are done around here the way they are done around here"... just isn't good enough. And it hasn't work so far. Lack of clear guidance for sysops has lead to headless chicken mode time and time again. Kip the Dip, anyone? Pink_(Tired) 06:13, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
• This is working for what it is - a place for "lulz", a CP watch and the occasional wonderful article. But as far as "government", this is terribly inefficient. We haven't defined yet what "rational" means for us, we can't agree whether religions are rational, we can't agree on a consistent blocking (or placement into vandal group) policy, we haven't decided yet which articles belong to the Fun: namespace and which don't. And we haven't decided yet what we want to do with this wiki. But all these aside, this is a fun place to come full of interesting people. What more can we hope for? Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 06:38, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
• The problem we have on this site is one the one hand, it is fairly well established that the site is for debunking things like creationism, fundamentalist religious dogma, health quackery, and conspiracy theories. But there seems to be a majority of the mobocracy who also think this means taking heavily politicized sides on such things as: political parties, politicians, economics, gun control, and international trade. Therein lies problem #1 with the mobocracy in a nutshell. What is this site really for? If it is for enforcing "progressive wing of the Democratic Party" dogma, just openly say so and quit pretending to be only about debunking fundamentalism and quackery. The other problem is there is no clear understanding of what sort of lulz belong on the site. The mainspace is full of funny articles and jokes. Some users move some of them to funspace, arbitrarily, with no discussion, but when I move something I get yelled at. Somebody explain to me the difference between a clearly silly article on "duct tape" and a clearly silly article on "freedom fries". Those were two of the more memorable things from the homeland security hysteria of the early 00's. I associate the two closely with each other since they came from the same time and context. Why is one mainspace-worthy and the other not? (It seems to me we had this same discussion with lulzy categories a while back and it went nowhere.) Secret Squirrel 17:51, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Couldn't you have achieved more by asking that "for example" question at the duct tape talk page, and engaging the person who moved it, rather than by moving another article in revenge? As far the Second Amendment (gun control...) article, it was an "argument by article creation", has never been very stable, and has been "mission-tagged" for ages. In terms of political "balance", I created several "liberal X" articles to deal with "conservative X" articles fairly; and I often delete the word "conservative" when clearly "fundamentalist" was what was intended. PS, I associate duct tape (in that context) with plastic sheeting, and freedom fries with hot dogs and liberty cabbage. ħuman 19:30, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I think SS has a point about the political nature of RW. We clearly are politicized now, whether we ever intended to be or not, so we may as well be open about it. Politics has become part of our mission, quite probabably more so than anything to do with debunking pseudoscience. Pink_(Tinker) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

(reply to the post above yours) The article wasn't moved in revenge, it was moved because it looked to me like a "now I have an example of what sort of article goes in funspace, I know of another very similar one that should be moved there too." At the time, the freedom fries article was entirely snark with hardly even any factual content. RA didn't create the freedom fries article in the first place so I am not sure why you would read revenge into this. Secret Squirrel 01:05, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

No - but alternatives are worse

• I for one, react poorly to persons "having authority" - I tend to say "well, if that's what you wanna do, I'm going, 'bye!" There's one or two people on here that I would find it impossible to cede any authority to. If the creationists, for example, did gain a majority, I don't think that anyone would expect Trent (the final arbiter!) to allow any take over.   ^Contribs_Talk 06:18, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  Susan: But that's our current system. The point of having rules is to have something to refer to without it coming down to one person's authority, and the personal conflicts associated with them. Pink_(Mink) 06:25, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  Yup! & it works, by and large! The rules would have to be agreed by the mob - so where's the difference?   ^Contribs_Talk 06:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  No, the rules would be agreed by the sysops (and nuts to this "sysops are janitors" bollocks) Pink₍₅₅₎ 06:49, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  Sysops = just about everyone (every regular editor) so it's still a mobocracy.   ^Contribs_Talk 06:54, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  Susan, any community has people in authority. So does ours. The question is how you select those people and which limits are placed on them. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:59, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  As scum rises to the surface - so authority becomes tacit. As long as I can say "Stuff you" (not that I ever would to you AK) I'm happy. When someone has official powers of censorship, I rebel.   ^Contribs_Talk 07:03, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  Why would anyone have "official powers of censorship"? I've no idea what you're talking about now. Pink_(???) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

• One potential problem that I see with the mobocracy is that any group of individuals with an agenda could join the site in large numbers, become members of the mobocracy, and turn it to their ends. Granted there are no signs of this actually happening, but it is a potential problem. I can think of no simple solution to the question though.--Bob^{bing up} 06:11, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

If not, is there anything better?

Yes - suggestions

• Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} for Leader of Rationalwiki. (Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 06:09, 6 October 2008 (EDT))

  Cut the Lulz please: trying to be serious!   ^Contribs_Talk 06:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  Wasn't I serious in my suggestion? Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 06:34, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

• Actual rules, like Wikipedia has -- ones that are designed to maintain the equilibrium of the site in the absence of any/all of the core members. Clear instructions for block times and vandal bin protocol. Limits on what can be allowed in each mainspace, rather than arguing about each article seperately. And more. Pink_{(Still tired)} 06:15, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  Rules require enforcers who's gonna be the police?   ^Contribs_Talk 06:21, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  Everyone. It won't come down to someone dictating what is correct (which is what we do now, I might add). Pink_{(ECs. ECs everywhere)}

  So - it's still a mobocracy!   ^Contribs_Talk 06:33, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  sigh

  1. It wasn't a mobocracy to start with.

  2. No. Now we're asserting out opinions as policy (see the fiasco that is the vote to block TK), whereas ideally we would have regulations written down to address these issues. Pink_{(No no no no no no no no no no no!)} 06:43, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  1: agreed

  2: It aint bust - so don't fix it!   ^Contribs_Talk 06:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  I respectfully assert that it is broken. How broken must it be before we take action? Power would rest with the same essential community as before, it would be simply be a lot more efficient. Pink_(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Pink that a few more guidelines (not necessarily hard & fast rules) as agree by the community/mobocracy, would lead to fewer conflicts. weaseLOId~ 07:54, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

As far as the "broken" thing - what, exactly is broken? That RA and I didn't agree on a cat scheme and mucked up RC for a while revert warring over four articles? Ironically, that discussion turned into this one, which is fun but whatever it does, is unlikely to resolve the original "conflict". That conflict, of course, could probably be easily resolved if a few more people who are really into the site's cat structure chimed in. ħuman 16:32, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually I have been trying to understand the cat question but I can't quite follow it. Susan attempted to explain it here: RationalWiki:Categories but my aged, alcohol-damaged brain isn't up to it. Any chance of an expansion of the issues?--Bob^{bing up} 16:45, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

In a nutshell, the minor revert war was over whether articles on people should be directly in the "people" cat, when all the "types of people" (like scientists or authors, say) categories are in "people". IOW, a tempest in a teapot. ħuman 19:25, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Human: don't be disingenuous. Your disagreement with RA is only one instance of a great many where our rules do not give adequate guidance. If minor disagreements already cause such heated arguments, how on earth do you expect to cope with disagreements on a much larger scale? RW won't always be small enough to run things like a treehouse club. Pink_(Fink) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Pink: don't lie. Seriously. "a great many"??? Name three in the last three months. You make it sound like this site is forever on the precipice of collapsing due to internal dissent. ħuman 00:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

No, I think you've misread me slightly :) I said it's one of a great many "instances where our rules do not give adequate guidance". I wasn't talking about arguments, as you apparently thought, but rather areas where there is insufficient guidance. Examples of that are given in pretty much every post I've made on this page. Pink_(Link) 00:47, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe

• We’re the most successful of 4 rational wikis that I know of. We’re doing some things right. There may be ways of improving things further. Fundy Conservative Christians won’t take over this site unless fundy Conservative Christian evangelists get to Tmtoulouse. I don’t think that will happen. If that happens we’ll all move over to another wiki, perhaps found a new one. Proxima Centauri 06:13, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Are they like zombies? If I get bitten do I turn? *shudder* Scary, scary....72.39.187.24 14:25, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Areas where rules/regulations/laws are required

Blocking

• Absolutely. See RationalWiki_talk:Community_Standards/TK Pink_(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

We certainly need to properly incorporate the vandal blocking instructions with the vandal brake instructions. But I'm not sure that we're not going beyond the bounds of this debate.--Bob^{bing up} 12:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I disagree with that and think TK is a bad example to use. For starters, there was a lot of personal history between he and some of the other regulars (I hated the bastard myself, but that was just me) and he was intentionally here to cause trouble (not to mention he had a history of making personal threats, "reporting" users to their bosses and posting personal information). A much better example would be Jinx. He vandalizes, and we block him for a short time in response. We also have pretty decent abilities to deter long term vandals... TK is always brought up and he was the obvious exception to the rule. I think the blocking policy, for the most part is fine. I would need a non TK debacle before I accepted this as a problem. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 13:06, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Why? TK is a fine example of an area with insufficient regulations. Read this, especially the "Conclusion" section. Do you really think there won't be examples like this in the future? How are we going to deal with them? Pink_(Pink) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

That's just it though, the TK incident is one of how many users that went overdrive, and that was because of the personal history. I don't know about you, but if I had some random anonymous user physically calling my boss and tattling about my computer use, I might be a little less friendly as well. On top of that, TK was always trying to play users against each other, just as he did at Conservapedia and Wikipedia. I would like to challenge again, find me any other user that we've had TK level issues with. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 01:17, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't saying he shouldn't have been blocked. I was saying that guideline for blocking (maybe "attacks based on editors' private lives warrant a block of two months" might be a start) would have enabled us to deal with the problem he posed much more quickly. Pink_(Link) 01:22, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Vandal making

• We could do with a proper classification of a vandal. Not everyone who vandalises is one. And we need guidelines for when it's appropriate to let people out of the vandal group. Pink_(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  I don't see what you mean by "not everyone who vandalizes is a vandal... How could they not be? and if they are not a vandal, they can always prove themselves (or even contact a sysop or bureaucrats) SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 13:06, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  What Sir Chuck said said.--Bob^{bing up} 13:15, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  See here. Pink_{(*rests case*)} 15:24, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  That clearly wasn't vandalism, it was an improvement! Also, just as TK was our pet dragon, Bohdan was our pet vandal, til he got bored of it and became a Danish Scientist. ħuman 15:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  We engage in casual vandalism all the time. At present, there's no way for a new user to know the difference between teasing and disruptive behaviour. Pink_{(Pinkness poisoning)} 16:03, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

That's what kicked off half the fuss with Teresita wasn't it? While it's possible to learn the difference, it's definitely not apparent to someone who lurks infrequently and has just signed up. Particularly if they've only made a small number of edits and comments before getting handed sysop priverlages, told where the help file is and blocked with a snarky comment. It's just not immediately obvious that those things aren't serious here. ArmondikoV^postate 16:57, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I learned better, eventually but the reputation as a whining bitch never goes away. Francine 17:07, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't be silly :) No one thinks you're a whining bitch. Pink_(Garlic) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I can't say I'm too informed on this, I guess I missed the Teresita drama... and I think I'm glad I did... But anyway, a few disclaimers about our style of humor to the welcome template and that should fix things... I mean, I picked up pretty quickly (but then I also spam Penguin pictures.,....) SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 17:49, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

We can't load the welcome template down with warnings about things that shouldn't happen in the first place. And in any case, what is it going to say? "Warning: We don't know what we're doing"? Pink_(Irritated) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

There's no loading down at all, just put in something along the lines of "blocks are frequently handed out for no reason in particular." or some such junk.

Sysoperisation

• Yes. We already have too many. Minimum edit counts and a voting process would be the first things to implement, I think. Pink_(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
• I've overdone it on this. A bit.   ^Contribs_Talk 08:35, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
• It doesn't really bother me SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 13:06, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
• I think the "everyone except Fre is a sysop" thing that has developed is pretty cool. It makes it incredibly tough for any "real" vandal to do any damage. ħuman 14:59, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

  I sort of disagree with that. It makes it tough for the predictable, uncreative vandals to do damage. However, it also makes it incredibly easy for the *real* real vandals to do a hell of a lot of damage if they're willing to invest the minimum amount of energy required to be made sysop. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:08, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Certainly another potential problem AKjeldsen, and it should be a fairly easy one to exploit. Maybe when it does we'll have to tighten up.--Bob^{bing up} 15:15, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

• While the current "process" seems a tad random, it doesn't cause any problems. Whether this will always be the case is another question.--Bob^{bing up} 15:05, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

It's a paradox that Andy preaches that there would be less problems with crime if everyone carried a gun and then doesn't apply the analogy to promoting sysops, while here the majority consensus is that carrying guns is bad idea but giving every Tom (Moore), Dick (Turpis) or Terry(sita) a lethal mop and bucket is the right thing to do. [No offence meant to those three, it's just a figure of speech.] Генгис^mutating 15:24, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Just an FYI on this point, there is nothing a sysops can do that can not be easily undone by another sysops. That is why it works out, and why the gun analogy probably doesn't quiet work. If sysops could do more permanent damage or damage that is hard to clean up more care would need to be taken. Hence why I don't care about sysops, but do care about crates. tmtoulouse 16:02, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, can't sysops wipe the pageviews of an article? Is that restorable?

Anyway, I think the issue is more one of authority. Pink_{(Prepares garlic)} 16:38, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

• Honest question: Have there been examples of where people have been sysopped who shouldn't have been? I.e. have any sysops gone on to damage the site or the relationships between the editors here? Bondurant 17:44, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

No, the worst that has ever happened is way back when Heart of Gold went a bit loopy and got himself de-sysopped. That couldn't possibly have been predicted, and other than that being basically trusting hasn't let us down so far. --JeevesMkII 18:02, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

• This seems to have been the only thing that has grabbed my attention so far. I have a rule of thumb, if you have been here a few weeks, made at least 50 edits (even if they have been all TWIGOCP) and after clicking on a few at random you don't appear to have vandalised the site I sysop you. I also then keep an eye on them for a while, so far nobody I sysoped has done anything that would earn a desysopping (deleting established articles, blocking non-sysops or so forth). I see no reason to change this. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 22:26, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I also used Pi Guy's process, although I don't need to anymore, since everyone else does it (ie, I don't get there first...). No regrets on any sysopship I stuck people with. ħuman 00:35, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Bureaucratisation

• See above. Pink_(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
• At the moment we seem to have sysops where other wikis have confirmed editors & bureaucrats (thanks for the spelling correction GK) where other wikis have sysops.

conflict resolution

• Yes! Pink_(Link) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm... Conflict resolution is a toughie, because of the size of the RW editorship and relatively flat heirarchial current structure here ... I think the sentiment is good, but difficult to enforce.Sterile^snore! 09:17, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, yes and no. In order to have a conflict resolution process you simply need to appoint an impartial arbiter. This can be any editor agreed on by the parties to the conflict. I think that guidelines for conflict resolution would be all that is needed.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 10:17, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Conflicts over article content usually work themselves out as long as people avoid edit warring by opening a discussion if their edits are reverted & seeking a consensus (i.e. appealing to mobocracy). Personal conflicts are always gonna be harder to resolve. weaseLOId~ 10:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the lack of an "impartial" arbiter was a problem in the past. Actually, if I have time (later in the week: Mondays are too busy), I might put together recommended guidelines for conflict resolution). Sterile^snore! 11:05, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

However, the question is how you determine what "The Mob" actually wants. The risk as I see it is that on a certain issue, you could have a handful of editors who agree on one interpretation, a smaller number or a single editor who disagrees, and then the vast silent majority of editors who either don't give a shit or don't even know the discussion is taking place. Should the majority on that local article or talk page be able to justify their interpretation with reference to "The Mob" or to "consensus" when in most cases, you don't actually have any input from 95% of the users. (See the discussion re: Clinton and Reagan on Talk:Chickenhawk for a possible example of this.) In effect, is a simple lack of disagreement from The Mob sufficient to decide that they support something? Or to put the issue in another perspective, can a "local" majority of editors put themselves forward as representative of The Mob as such? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:04, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Not giving a shit is expressing a preference. The preference is abstention. As to editors not knowing what is going on, I think that a voting period of a couple of days should be sufficient to allow all interested parties to voice their opinions. Also, perhaps this would be a good use for the intercom. The problem is that we will never have a vote where every registered user makes an edit. Given that this is true, how do we tell from looking at a talk page whether or not everyone who wants to vote has voted? The system will never be perfect. I think the best answer is to have a formal vote proceedure whereby a vote duration is specified and an annoucement is made via the intercom.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:20, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, we could do that. Formal voting would take us significantly away from a "mobocracy", however. I'm also not sure that voting is a particularly good way to do conflict resolution. It's much like a court trial in that only one side wins and the other loses, and that doesn't really "resolve" the conflict. It should at least be reserved as a last resort. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:34, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I didn't realize I was suggesting a new model. For some reason when I read your post I thought that you were talking about votes... I agree that formal voting is potentially not a good way to resolve disputes, and certainly should be used as a last resort. My main point was just that the problem of deciding when someone's silence is voluntary or indicental is necessarily intractible.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:45, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Agreed voting should be avoided unless we come to really big potential schisms. I think that a lot of content disputes can be settled Wikipedia-style - i.e. based on verifiability of facts first & foremost, & on consensus (i.e. reasoned mobocracy through debate on talk pages). Obviously we are not NPOV like Wikipedia, so disputes over the POV of articles tend to occur. These can usually be settled in favour of the general POV of the site as there is a lot of common ground. If there are issues where the POV of an article upsets a large number of editors (say, for example, an article about religion presented in a way which some theists here object to, or some atheists), then in those situations we should probably settle in favour of NPOV as a kind of default fallback position to avoid causing resentment among the community. weaseLOId~ 12:08, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I've been involved in a few conflicts, one or two of which required a cool down block, but other than that, I haven't had many problems with conflict resolution. However, I do agree that their should be some type of fallback system just in case. The most important thing, however, is that people who aren't involved in the conflict should refrain from jumping in and adding their two cents, 98% of the time it just makes things worse SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 13:06, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Disagree. If they're ongoing personal conflicts, then maybe, but those aren't productive anyway. But any kind of discussion or dispute about article content, POV, categories, etc. should be open for anybody to comment. That's how consensus is reached. weaseLOId~ 13:34, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I assume you mean about not chiming in... But it depends on why you're adding in. If you coming to the defense of a friend, or just for spite against an editor you don't like, you're not helping matters at all. Now, if you have a legit interest in the article and have an opinion, that's completely different. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 14:05, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Mostly I mean about having a real interest in the content (& I'm thinking here mostly about article talk page conflicts). Also, if there's a conflict between a couple of editors, taking sides doesn't help, but stepping in to suggest a compromise or try to bring it back the discussion back to productive territory can help to avoid it spiralling out of control. It also kindof depends who it is - as I'm a relatively new editor, I tend to stay out of conflicts involving some of the long-time editors as I know there are probably well established dynamics among & between them which I don't really want to get caught up in as I don't know the full history. But most discussions should be open to everyone. As a rule of thumb, if it's a dispute on an article talk page or WIGO:talk etc, anyone's comment should be welcome; if it's a dispute on user talk pages, it's usually best not to get involved if it doesn't concern you directly. weaseLOId~ 14:20, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

other?

• Don't let users (Susan?) mess with page format. Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 06:54, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
• Don't mess with Susan. Susan = Chuck Norris. Trust me. I know o_O ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ <insert witty comment here>

Style policies

I think that there should be more discussion about issues of site style & protocol resulting in a few more guidelines as agreed by mob consensus. E.g. the Footnotes thing was changed with minimal discussion a few days ago; this debate seems to have started over a feud about categories. This is the stuff we need to talk about. It might look like petty small stuff but I think there would be fewer conflicts if there were some guidelines on it, & places to discuss changes or suggestions to the guidelines. But the systems we have for this at the moment aren't really working, or else nobody is taking enough interest in these things. E.g. I have a bugbear that there aren't enough redirects, which makes some things hard to find or link to, & results in a lot of duplicate articles. I tried to bring it up on RationalWiki:Serious Business which I guess is supposed to be like our Village Pump, but nobody has noticed it or bothered to respond. I think that more policy pages (not hard rules but guidelines for things like this) & discussions which the community takes interest in could improve these issues. weaseLOId~ 07:51, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Redirects definitely should be discussed by the whole site. Some people tend to look upon them as convenient things to link to, when ideally they should never be linked to at all -- they're for people typing in the search engine.

Also, I think your comment on Serious Business went unnoticed because few people check there, and it's not exactly in regular rotation on RC</sheepish> Pink_{(I think WIGO is our Pump, sadly)} 07:57, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm horrible about checking serious business (maybe we should have a few sysops and bureaucrats responsible for it a month, you know like a rolling leader's hat or something. Anyway, I think some redirects are fine, for example, I created one for McCain and Obama. but we don't need to be Wikipedia. We should only have redirects for things that an average person might search for. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 13:06, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure I was entirely aware of "serious business" until now, but looking at the suggestion regarding redirects, I think it's completely sensible to outline what they're needed for. I've seen a few redirect pages deleted because they only have "redirect" in them with one contribution; not sure if this is someone trying to clean up or a bot clearing out redundant articles. Media Wiki provides this feature for a reason (!), it's certainly worth allowing them and having plenty as the search engine currently seems to be useless at finding certain articles unless you know the exact title. I don't know why anyone would object to having them, they're certainly useful as a wiki site grows. ArmondikoV^postate 17:06, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Policy Pages

The entire problem seems to be that we don't have certain policy pages. But I would point to the operation of this page as a perfect example of the benefits of the "mobocracy" (a misnomer, but who cares?) It appears a firm consensus has developed that most everyone likes the way things work except that there hasn't been definitions of certain policies and things. We very seldom have people who just ignore the rules, it's just that for a lot of things we don't have any guidelines. This page itself is a great proof of the effectiveness of the current system: a problem is proposed, a rational discussion occurs, and a general consensus and conclusion appears outlining the solution. We just need to decide on the policy pages and create them, and then let the same process work out exactly what their contents shall be. I would suggest starting from the user guides and sysop guides and branching out from those main pages.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:50, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we could assemble here a list of general principles? What are some things that we can all agree would be a good idea?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:53, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

• When you make an article, check to make sure it isn't redundant. If it's an article on Plymouth Rock, maybe the page on Pilgrims already addresses what you wanted to say, and so you should just make a redirect.
• When you create a new article, try to create redirect pages for it. If it's an article on Oranges, a good redirect might be the singular "Orange."

Some issues of this type are already covered at RationalWiki:Help/New Article. It is possible that that we already have more guidelines than people know about.--Bob^{bing up} 12:52, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

There's also RationalWiki:Editor's_index, which I just found totally by accident.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:01, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

As a relatively new editor (sysop - gak), "guidelines" are not the same as "rules", and "really, we mean it" should be reserved for what you really do mean... That is, around here some things are like "we like this if you can", and some things need a stronger sense of "this really makes wiki work". For what it's worth, some things I'd like to have seen (see) as a new editor might include: when to make a new page (vs., just deleting the red link); what tones should new pages have (humor or semi serious or snark or totally serious), and how to blend those tones if you think a mix of many voices matters; should you put the CATS in, or should a 3rd party who's been here awhile put them in as a "review" (by the way, categories started this whole recent fight, it seems... and that's good. cause i have no idea exactly how many cats people want on things... is Humor also "art"? if i put something in Chemistry, does it also belong in science? and is "mythology" different from, a sub set of, or a super set of "myths and legends". Cats here are very much like cats. they really do do just as they want. ;-) En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 15:48, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Categories here have confused the hell out of me too. The important thing to ask is; "Do people use them?". As an editor, the only ones I tend to look at are the short and very short article lists but if I'm having a curious read I sometimes look up what's in each category. ArmondikoV^postate 17:09, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree with that... Even on Wikipedia I rarely go through the categories. I'm much more likely to read what's wiki-linked in the article itself...I don't know how everyone else works, but I'm not a huge fan of the cat SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 17:51, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Proposals

These are all quite simple concepts on their own. I think debating them seperately will be more effective. Also, I've noticed that when someone actually proposes something like this, the suggestion is ignored and the conversation eventually runs dry without addressing the ideas themselves. If there are any statements of support/disagreement/clarification for the below issues, can I have them, please? Pink_{(Not tired)} 00:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Clarification of political stance in mission statement (Secret Squirrel)

Respectfully, this site shouldn't have a political stance beyond equal opportunity ripping of all politicians and all political parties to shreds, and lulz. (This means Clinton is a chickenhawk, folks. Get over it.) Claiming that political stances can be empirically proven as objective truth as EVDebs seems to be, is bullshit and should be treated as the pseudoscience that it is. The last thing the world needs is any more fucking political blogs. Secret Squirrel 00:50, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Dude... really? Still on the chickenhawk thing? Anyway, I don't think "this site" has any type of political bias. Many users are very liberal (I fully admit to this) and I think anyone can take a look around and see that we tend to skew left, but that doesn't mean the site is any more or less bias in one direction or the other. I have no problem with liberals or democrats attacked for stupid things. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 01:21, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Debate and final agreement on the matter of categorisation (Pink)

This one is new (unlike the others), but I think it's become fairly important. Pink_(Link) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Clear rules for blocking (would include length, block message, etc) (Pink)

We have guidelines, but no one follows them. No harm ensues. PS, we don't do rules. ħuman 00:36, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

"we don't do rules" -- No, that's what we're debating. And yes, harm has ensued from this inadequate system of rules -- as seen in the Kip the Dip incident (AK's block of Susan) Pink_(Link) 00:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

That's it for examples? One HCM incident? How many months ago? I can only think of three or four "situations" that have actually been real problems over, what, 18 months? (TK, HoG, Kip, and a bye on number 4) ħuman 00:46, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

One incident that nearly caused two founding members of the wiki to leave for good? Oh sure, completely harmless then. You said no harm; my example described relevant harm; you are wrong. Pink_(Link) 00:51, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

How about no blocking at all. 72.39.187.24 00:56, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I second this idea. I think using the vandal group instead of blocking is a much more efficient way of doing things. Plus, there are much fewer ways the vandal group can disrupt the community when misused. Anyone else want to chime in on this? Pink_{(Or pointlessly demand clarification? Anyone?)} 01:02, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

"Nearly" - no harm ensued, so you are wrong. ħuman 00:59, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

It was not "nearly no harm". Pink_(Link) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Rules against editors asserting other editors "are wrong" based on no difflinks or reality whatsoever (Human)

I disagree that there should be such silly "rules". ħuman 00:59, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

There should certainly be a rule against pointless disruption of discussion. Was that what you meant? Pink_(Link) {{User:Pink/sig15| 01:02, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

"Impartial arbiter" for conflict resolution (Antifly)

We've tried to draft Assfly over to our site many times. He ignores us. ħuman 00:41, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

"content disputes can be settled Wikipedia-style - i.e. based on verifiability of facts first & foremost, & on consensus (i.e. reasoned mobocracy through debate on talk pages)" (Weaseloid)

• I support this method, for the record. Although it could do with some clarification. Pink_(Link) 01:05, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
• "Consensus" on this site - that's a joke, "consensus" only seems to work one way. Secret Squirrel 01:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

"Some type of fallback system" for conflict resolution (SirChuckB)

The biggest problem I can foresee with a fallback system is that either we have to appoint a panel or give someone ridiculous powers. Trent doesn't have time to babysit Andy Style and unless we want to hand the keys over to one group, I don't see how this would work... The only thing I can suggest would be like a five person panel (voted in by the site) who could make final decisions, but that would only work as long as everyone is willing to abide by that, which I don't see happening. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 01:25, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Rules for redirects and duplicate articles (Weaseloid)

I think redirects, as brought up above, are a good idea. Not zillions, but the obvious plural/singular, verb/noun/adjective/expletive versions are useful. Rulz? See my suggestion below. ħuman 00:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Creation of "Policy Pages" (Tom Moore)

I'm not big on this "creation" thing you speak of. I prefer accidents of nuclear physics. PS, while the LHC may not create black holes that eat the earth (nom nom), should we be responsible if it creates a number of other universes we don't know about? And can we write their rules? ħuman 00:44, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

No "Rules" needed (Human)

I don't see any instance raised in the zillion kB above of how there is anything wrong with how this wiki is "not" run. ħuman 00:38, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe I should underline them. Pink_{(The text is quite small.)} 00:52, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe you should, somewhere amidst your assertions, refer to actual situations and actual outcomes. ħuman 01:00, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe you should actually read what I type? It would probably help, you know. Pink_(Bless) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I did, most of it didn't make any sense or was unsupported by evidence. ħuman 01:21, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Pink is only here to play devil's advocate

Agree

• ħuman 01:21, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

  Do you know what "devil's advocate" actually means? Pink_{(It's not "disagrees with you for fun", for the record)} 01:28, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

  I assume it means advocating for the devil, but don't quote me on that. $:) SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 01:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

  I think he was going to say "troll", but then thought better of it. Devil's advocate should imply that I'm disagreeing in order to test the weaknesses of an idea I agree with. Pink_(Link) 01:34, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Abuse of the Mob as a bureaucracy

There is a big problem which I would like to see addressed: the lack of limitations on the Mob's jurisdiction. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:23, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

To expound, any single (non-talkpage) edit by any one editor can be objected to by someone else, and the alteration put before the mob to decide. For example, if you make so much as a tense change to a single sentence, any random editor can come along and say, "I object to this change from the established state of this article. I will revert it and ask for the Mob's input." With no set limits on the jurisdiction of the Mob, any editor can arbitrarily decide that any one edit requires the approval of the Mob before going through, thus utilizing the Mob as a tool to systematically enforce their preferred versions of articles across the wiki. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:23, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not going to pull punches here: Human has abused the system by doing this multiple times. If he personally approves of an edit he will leave it alone. But if he personally disapproves of it, not only will he revert it, but he will tell the editor to "ask the Mob", effectively proscribing the edit, no matter how legitimate it may be, from appearing for quite some time, if at all. His approach turns the Mob into a bureaucracy: "Sorry, but you cannot make this edit until you have submitted your writing plan to the Mob for approval before proceeding. Remember to answer every question satisfactorily, or it will be summarily rejected. Godspeed." Just because he disagreed with it. What kind of standard is that? It isn't one—it's just one editor enforcing his vision of an article on the site. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:23, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know of this happening, but Human and I tend to travel in seperate circles (not including CP articles). Do you have any proof of this accusation? Diff links would be helpful. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 01:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

See: yesterday.

See also: Right now. Pink_{(Ha ha ha)} 01:29, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Not really helpful... SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 01:32, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

??? WTF? ħuman 01:35, 7 October 2008 (EDT)