Wikipedia talk:Simple News/Special Edition/Jonas Rand

Sigh, Must all of your posts be a social comment? Its a Christmas newsletter, not a soapbox for you to try to undermine users. Kennedy ^(talk) 12:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your use of the term 'undermine' in this context. I put my plans for 2009, and the goals that I believe the community should reach by the end of next year. I also inserted my views about various issues. Because you do not feel like writing a four-paragraph statement on Simple Wikipedia and its future does not make my statement inappropriate. Jonas D. Rand ^T 15:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Very impressed, Jonas

Jonas,

Just wanted to drop a note about your hopes for 2009. I've been active on English Wikipedia for some time but became fed up with the politics involved - there's so much time going into such things without enough focus on the article writing. I may disclose my EN account at some point, but just want to get settled here first.

I agree with most of what you appear to be saying here, especially in relation to IRC. I found it amazing, and disgusting, on EN to see how many decisions were taken on IRC and the amount of discussion. I had hoped it didn't happen here at all, but your post has worried me.

All the best for 2009, and http://upload.wikimedia.org/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngI sincerely hope you manage to meet your aims. If more editors across all WMF sites had aims like you, we'd be doing a far better job of building an encyclopedia rather than a competitor for MySpace and Facebook Soup Dish (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Soup Dish, unfortunately the horror of IRC secret admins decision making has been imported to this wiki, and one of my main goals here is to try to prevent this from importing many of the same bad qualities of English Wikipedia. It appears that this is happening quite frequently at Simple, but I feel that there is still hope for a better, more independent project. Jonas D. Rand ^T 15:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue I'm most concerned with about publically logging IRC conversations is a simple one: you won't get what people actually think. People on SEWP are far more formal in their delivery and especially are careful what to say as they know that everyone will be able to read their comments. For example, the Pakistani IP was dealt with quite formally with several messages posted on his talk page and pages associated with him. However, I distinctly remember conversations on IRC about him/her during these times where people actually voiced what they thought about the matter: usually involving a block until we could be assured that the manual of style would be followed.

Another example of IRC thoughts vs. Wikipedia thoughts is DYK. I remember BlueGoblin discussing starting up a DYK section on SEWP. I'm positive that he wouldn't have started a discussion about a SEWP DYK on Simple Talk, as it can be a hostile and intimidating environment as well as the fact that people may not even read what he has written (holidays, Wikibreak etc). However, on IRC he was able to voice ideas without fear of being crushed and put down as he may have in this more formal environment. IRC is overall a more friendly place than online, as well as being a more open place for discussion issues with people in real time (unlike leaving them a message which could go weeks without a reply or even none at all). If you publish IRC logs, people will be more careful about voicing their opinions, concerned with who's prying tiny eyes will be reading and evaluating every word. IRC will eventually digress to simply an online Simple Talk - not a good thing. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

My own issue isn't with logging, it's that IRC should not be used in relation to Wikipedia whatsoever as it undermines one of the main, if not the main, things Wikipedia is meant to be about - the creation of consensus. By using IRC, a group of editors can then put their version of consensus across on wiki and skew the entire following discussion. It's also worth nothing that this Wikipedia has many, apparently, users who are not very confident with using English. Following debates in public, on wiki, would be far easier for them than following a live conversation off wiki Soup Dish (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Soup Dish has illustrated my points exactly. It is possible to voice one's opinion without attacking others. If someone is looking, then they can see a plot being crafted on IRC. Or when they know eyes are watching, they are less inclined to do something underhanded. Opinions should be voiced on-wiki anyway. Everything people consider an attack is not an attack. Some are hypersensitive, and despite that, editors should be encouraged to voice their opinions on-wiki anyway. It is not in the spirit of wiki to conduct affairs in secret, where something can easily be plotted. It is a threat to the proper role of administrators, servants of the community, where bad-faith administrative duties can be planned.

As for a less stressful environment, IRC, though it should be scrutinized, should also be a place to voice one's opinions, and debate things. It should not be considered a Stalinist police state because behavior is monitored, unless it becomes a Stalinist police state, in which it is actually against the rules to voice one's opinions. The IRC visitors should be notified that they should not be afraid to discuss things merely because the chat is being logged. 68.96.213.118 (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)