Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:22, 16 January 2016

This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use. This page was last edited by Biscuittin (talk | contribs) 8 years ago. (Update timer)

This page is for the development of policies for the reform of Misplaced Pages. If you think that Misplaced Pages does not need reform then you have nothing to contribute here so please go away. This is a long-term project so do not expect instant results.

Subjects for discussion

Bullying

I thought Misplaced Pages had an anti-bullying policy at Misplaced Pages:WikiBullying but I have since been told that this is "just an essay". Let's have a proper anti-bullying policy.

Civility is not only a policy, but one of the Five pillars. Anti-bullying is but one part of being civil to others. So in a way, we do have a proper anti-bullying policy. The problem is that the civility policy lacks teeth. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 20:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ONUnicorn. I see you've already solved all the problems at User:ONUnicorn/The problem with Misplaced Pages... AND the solution. Biscuittin (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view is not enforced consistently. This must change.

Poor administration

The WMF must hire people to edit Misplaced Pages to police article content and resolve disputes. This can be done with a separate and new non-profit organization to avoid losing Section 230 immunity. (Suggested by QuackGuru).

And you would, what, fire over a thousand unpaid volunteers who do this now, who were selected by the community that they help administrate? Don't even bother answering that until you ask the WMF itself if there is any possibility at all that they would do this, because the answer is almost certainly "absolutely not" and there is no way to make them do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Democracy and consensus

I think we need a policy for sacking bad administrators. A Recall election might be a way to do this.

This has been suggested again and again. At times there has seemd to be fairly strong support for something but what that something should be has been a continual sticking point. The primary concearn is usually that any admin who is actually doing a good job is inevitably going to have angered some people who might abuse such a process for revenge, rather than to get rid of truly abusive admins. This is why arbcom is currently the only way to do this, you actually have to present compelling evidence before they will even start sucha discussion.

It is possible to get abusive admins removed this way, it just isn't easy, nor should it be. I have done it myself and also voted to remove abusive admins when I was on the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

Thanks Beeblebrox. I see that there already are Misplaced Pages:Administrators open to recall but the scheme is voluntary. I think it should be compulsory but I agree that some people might abuse such a process for revenge, so there would need to be some safeguards. What those safeguards should be, is a subject for discussion. Biscuittin (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Fairness

Misplaced Pages rules are not enforced consistently. Some editors are continually being banned while others commit the same offences and get away with it. This suggests bias on the part of some administrators.

I don't think this is just a problem with certain admins, there are in fact portions of the community who believe that highly productive content creators should be given much wider lattitude than others, and although they are a minority they are extremely vocal and honestly I think that through their drama mongering they manage to intimidate or wear down admins who would prefer to apply the rules evenly. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

New users

I think that new users are being discouraged by heavy-handed enforcement of rules for trivial reasons.

This si a real problem, mainly propogated by overzealous "patrollers" who lack a nuanced understanding of how to apply policies and guidelines and tend to assume bad faith when they see cluelessness. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Other

Suggestions welcome.

Who should we approach?

• Misplaced Pages administrators
• Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation
• Regulators (e.g. Ofcom)
• Other (suggestions welcome)

Union of Editors

I am thinking of forming a Union of Editors on Misplaced Pages to challenge the power of secret cabals. The Union will not be a cabal because it will be quite open about what it is doing and who belongs to it. If you are interested in joining, please say so here. I should warn you that we are likely to be persecuted. Biscuittin (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly relevant sources

• http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/
• https://posthegemony.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/meltdown-at-wikipedia/
• http://wikistrategies.net/james-heilman-removed/