Jump to content

Findings, conclusions and recommendations by Piotrus (as of 26 Nov)

Yes. But (again) I see "fixing Arbcom" (as a conclusion and route) as a complete dead end in the context of this discussion. It's a tiny part of quality intended only for where communities fail. Here, we prioritize "how to make success in these areas much more likely -- without Arbcom".

Assume that anything that relies on persuading a group of users to have different outlooks will fail (see elsewhere for why). Also having worked on Arbcom I can tell you it's the wrong place to be focusing. They're under intense strain, and they cut stuff to the bone and even then it's barely keeping up. We need to focus on the community, and ways to make specific changes that will have a large effect even if this report becomes "yesterdays news" and almost nobody reads it. Instead, engage the mass of people who do edit, and those who don't, to resolve it, by guiding and informing those efforts better.

Assume bulk persuading people "don't do this, do that" is a fail. Instead, make it so that many people doing "this not that" becomes almost inevitable due to simple human nature. Much easier :)

  • If you set up newcomer guidance they will take benefit from it, continually, even if the report is ignored.
  • If you hammer the basics of quality and highlight improvements on every medium, emphasizing you CAN fix it, more people will, continually, even if the report is ignored.
  • If you try and tell Arbcom "be nicer" or "do this not that" it'll last approximately until the next 50 emails arrive; they're firefighting already.

Sorry to harp on it, but it's key to success.

FT2 (Talk | email)04:43, 27 November 2009

It's not that I disagree with you; it's that your solutions seem to focus on getting new editors - which is fine, but I think we need to figure out how to retain them (and recover lost ones), or we will just keep burning through them until eventually there will be nobody (old, young) left to recruit, and all we will have is a bunch of flaming trolls creating poisonous atmosphere :(

Piotrus05:54, 27 November 2009

Ah, minor correction perhaps. I'm looking at all aspects, but mostly, what is the most we can do for quality, with 2 - 4 recommendations, that will have strong persistent effects. I think I have said clearly that this includes improving the environment for longer standing users, giving them further skills and help. So we agree there. Where we've differed isn't in what's desirable, but that goals like "Make Arbcom be nicer" or "Set up 3 x CIV as a limit" are in suggestion terms, dead ends. Too narrow, too detailed, unlikely to gain the level of culture change needed, unlikely to have the pervasive effect a task like this is looking for. We agree on goals. I just say those specific approaches are too "slim". Hope that clarifies.

FT2 (Talk | email)06:33, 27 November 2009

This all makes sense but I fear that the detail level is way too far along for the process. I would like to see more big picture, focused thinking that addresses the infrastructure rather than negotiating exact details at this point. It is good to keep thinking about this and typing it in, however could you focus that same energy and brain power on an assessment of what exists, followed by looking at the whole and then component pieces to assess what works in a Quality framework?

Not dissing anyone, just trying to redirect a bit.

Bhneihouse17:48, 28 November 2009

At the very least I suggest we don't discard the more general recommendations; perhaps somebody can make them more practical.

Piotrus05:09, 30 November 2009

practical, yes. That is my destination as well.

Bhneihouse05:16, 30 November 2009