But is there a cabal? The Wookieepedia political situation
I've been on Wookieepedia almost since its launch — I say "almost" because I was initially skeptical about it, I just started editing Wikipedia's Star Wars articles and I didn't understand the point of copying articles from Wikipedia. Eventually, though, frustrated with Wikipedia's "Lists of minor anything", I moved.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Star Wars fan — I just like the way it all fits. Continuity. However, my involvement with Wookieepedia so far was 5% Star Wars and 95% technical issues. The Consensus Track, the new Community Portal, the first FA system, Main Page v2, Main Page v3, meta-templates, infoboxes, infoboxes v2, the Senate Hall, CSS, JavaScript, the first droid, QOTD... I start things, but rarely maintain them - rather, I create the necessary structure that allows others to do that. Like I did when handing QOTD over to Sentry in August, the result being the automated QOTD rotation.
I like to play with things. I'm a convinced believer of the "BOLD, revert, discuss" principle, which usually goes this way for me: I screw things up, people complain, I revert the changes, and we discuss them — and what would have been better.
Of course, while being bold, I'm usually not being reckless. Almost everything is discussed on IRC. If I feel there are enough people backing me up, I go and implement it. I'm always the one who volunteers to do the most crazy stuff, which nobody else will dare to do. I piss people off and get away with it, and frankly, I like to study their reactions.
So, in essence, one can say that there is a cabal, from a certain point of view, like Obi-Wan said. Most of the brainstorming and decision-making occurs on IRC, and I'm quite happy with this approach — I'll explain why. However, our little IRC gang is not so secret after all, and thus not a "cabal" in the traditional sense. The process is not transparent for the average Wookieepedian, but most of them know who is responsible, and that is enough.
One problem with today's Wookieepedia is its obsession with bureaucracy and instruction creep. This is what Wikipedia is not, but apparently on Wookieepedia it's okay to have a detailed policy on everything and then enforce it to the letter. In the Olden Days™, I got frowned upon for enforcing the 3RR for the sake of it. Nowadays, such behavior is considered the norm.
I'm also concerned about "literalists", people who think our policies are to be followed strictly and to the letter, and who argue about the intended meaning of text. The fact that the Wikipedia-imported "ignore all rules" policy was outvoted so quickly is rather troubling.
The CT is slow and unresponsive — it has always been, but while it was okay when we didn't have many contributors, now it's simply unacceptable. Hence my obsession with avoiding votes whenever necessary and with the "finding consensus, not voting" stuff. Generally, I close discussions as soon as it makes sense — as soon as either it becomes evident that it's going somewhere, or it becomes evident that it's not going anywhere. Really pressing issues like sourcing get closed rather quickly. For VFDs, on the other paw, there is no deadline, and some stay there for weeks.
Sometimes I close discussions rather abruptly, inventing some lame cop-outs for what are really "cabal decisions" or my own meddling. This is all a case of "the ends justify the means" — in my opinion, at least. You know, I envy Sailor Pluto and other characters with an "omniscient morality license", who can do all kinds of crazy things because they just know it will turn out okay.
The CT is by no means just a "rubber stamp" whose sole purpose is to approve pre-discussed things — sometimes these pre-discussed things get rejected instead. But as it stands now, most of our CT-ers are rather inert and won't propose anythign radical. Fresh ideas, initial brainstorming and experimentation — all these things require operativity and constant feedback, and so far, IRC (whose promotion on Wookieepedia remains one of my primary goals) has been rather successful in this respect.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Star Wars fan — I just like the way it all fits. Continuity. However, my involvement with Wookieepedia so far was 5% Star Wars and 95% technical issues. The Consensus Track, the new Community Portal, the first FA system, Main Page v2, Main Page v3, meta-templates, infoboxes, infoboxes v2, the Senate Hall, CSS, JavaScript, the first droid, QOTD... I start things, but rarely maintain them - rather, I create the necessary structure that allows others to do that. Like I did when handing QOTD over to Sentry in August, the result being the automated QOTD rotation.
I like to play with things. I'm a convinced believer of the "BOLD, revert, discuss" principle, which usually goes this way for me: I screw things up, people complain, I revert the changes, and we discuss them — and what would have been better.
Of course, while being bold, I'm usually not being reckless. Almost everything is discussed on IRC. If I feel there are enough people backing me up, I go and implement it. I'm always the one who volunteers to do the most crazy stuff, which nobody else will dare to do. I piss people off and get away with it, and frankly, I like to study their reactions.
So, in essence, one can say that there is a cabal, from a certain point of view, like Obi-Wan said. Most of the brainstorming and decision-making occurs on IRC, and I'm quite happy with this approach — I'll explain why. However, our little IRC gang is not so secret after all, and thus not a "cabal" in the traditional sense. The process is not transparent for the average Wookieepedian, but most of them know who is responsible, and that is enough.
One problem with today's Wookieepedia is its obsession with bureaucracy and instruction creep. This is what Wikipedia is not, but apparently on Wookieepedia it's okay to have a detailed policy on everything and then enforce it to the letter. In the Olden Days™, I got frowned upon for enforcing the 3RR for the sake of it. Nowadays, such behavior is considered the norm.
I'm also concerned about "literalists", people who think our policies are to be followed strictly and to the letter, and who argue about the intended meaning of text. The fact that the Wikipedia-imported "ignore all rules" policy was outvoted so quickly is rather troubling.
The CT is slow and unresponsive — it has always been, but while it was okay when we didn't have many contributors, now it's simply unacceptable. Hence my obsession with avoiding votes whenever necessary and with the "finding consensus, not voting" stuff. Generally, I close discussions as soon as it makes sense — as soon as either it becomes evident that it's going somewhere, or it becomes evident that it's not going anywhere. Really pressing issues like sourcing get closed rather quickly. For VFDs, on the other paw, there is no deadline, and some stay there for weeks.
Sometimes I close discussions rather abruptly, inventing some lame cop-outs for what are really "cabal decisions" or my own meddling. This is all a case of "the ends justify the means" — in my opinion, at least. You know, I envy Sailor Pluto and other characters with an "omniscient morality license", who can do all kinds of crazy things because they just know it will turn out okay.
The CT is by no means just a "rubber stamp" whose sole purpose is to approve pre-discussed things — sometimes these pre-discussed things get rejected instead. But as it stands now, most of our CT-ers are rather inert and won't propose anythign radical. Fresh ideas, initial brainstorming and experimentation — all these things require operativity and constant feedback, and so far, IRC (whose promotion on Wookieepedia remains one of my primary goals) has been rather successful in this respect.
Great post over once more. Thank you:)