[Wikipedia-l] Strong request for a new edit window boilerplate requested (was Re: Lir)

Wed Nov 13 07:23:21 UTC 2002

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> 

> Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I
> make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to
> each edit window. It could state something like the following;
> 
>     "By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the
>      rules and conditions of using this website"
> 
> 'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a
> new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the
> basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and
> Wikipetiquette.
> 
> Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to
> the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social
> contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract
> set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more
> explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least).
> 
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> 
> See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

I heard something somewhere approximately:  ~ Just powers are derived 
from the consent of the governed. ~  I think it was Jefferson in the
U.S. Declaration of Independence but it has been long since middle 
school civics.

I think your suggestion above has mucho merit as long as we
achieve clear definitions, due process, and uniform application.
Somebody suggested a short user/contributor bill of rights as well.
Ed's analysis and suggestions seem (to me) quite insightful,
applicable, and easily mergeable with your concepts above.

I think you are somewhat incorrect regarding the size causing
the problem.  In my view, it merely makes the noise unbearable.  I 
see the root in a classic fallacy pattern resulting in a 
destructive (to the community machinery) positive feedback loop.  

New users and old hands alike
think to themselves: "Others do not follow the social contract, 
why should I?"  Positive feedback (used in the engineering sense
not the behavorial reinforcement sense) is established as others
observe the growing infractions and the problem grows ever more
rapidly until uncivilized behavior is the norm 
and the "community" fragments.  Steady state is achieved
when as many people are leaving as are arriving.  We may be
at or close to this point.

The material Stephen pointed at (on meatballwiki?) seemed very
excellent and correct to me.  IIRC, he placed us somewhere
between 16 and 18 on the scale of 20 observed phases of wiki
community life cycles.

I also like Erik's idea of documenting the prevailing "consensus"
by voting.   gnome.org has a public voting process which they seem
to think works to avoid stuffing the ballot box but it may be based
upon a public key infrastructure.  As Elian and others have pointed 
out we need to start resolving some issues.  Alas, this would
require the self discipline to abide by the expressed documented
will of the prevailing voting majority unless Mr. Wales vetos some
truly abhorrent tyranny of the ignorant, irresponsible, unwashed 
masses found here such as "no profanity, blasphemy, or porn in 
the user account names" referendum which I would immediately submit
to the English community.

Say, I also liked your reorganization proposal for the mailing
lists.  It seemed; to me; well thought out, symmetrical, and logical.

In closing I would like to emphasize that I think we first
need the clear definitions, ratification, due process and
equality before the community policy hammered out before
we implement the boilerplate.

Regards,
Mike Irwin