Growing Pains
Abstract edit
As the various Wikipedias grow and mature, their place in society is evolving and changing rapidly. From a small website frequented by a few dedicated enthusiast to the fourth biggest website of the world, from a curiosity that "cannot possibly work" to the first source of information for millions of people worldwide, Wikipedia is not today what it was four — or even two — years ago.
The changing profile of readers and editors, and the increased media focus and scrutiny has profoundly changed the importance and nature of disputes on Wikipedia. Some fear imminent doom, and many clamor for something to change.
Six panelist with day to day experience solving the most divisive and heated disputes discuss how things have changed, how applicable the founding principles remain today, and how to avoid and solve the worst problems. With an eye to what is to come, they offer a vision of the future that may not be as dark as some might fear.
Plan edit
- Presentation; Growth and respectability.
- Opening words ( 3m)
- Prepared presentation by mod; why real-world activists increasingly turn to Wikipedia and how it affects the contents and the dispute resolution process. Impacts on consensus as a working method.
- Introduction of panelists ( 2m)
- Are things better or worse today?
Objective and subjective accounts of then versus now. Are things that different? Is our public image shaped by the change in focus or is this still just noise behind the curtains?
- 2 min per panelist (12m)
- 1 min counterpoint ( 6m)
- field questions (~10m)
- Questions and comments fielded during the three themes should be on topic.
- The Encyclopedia that anyone should edit?
How did the philosophy of complete openness to passerby editing and pseudonimity shape the Wikipedia of today? Is it the Root of all BLP Evil or a valuable cornerstone? What would flagged revisions change?
- 2 min per panelist (12m)
- 1 min counterpoint ( 6m)
- field questions (~10m)
- How to avoid meeting us (and how to escape if you do).
What disputes end up in front of the final battlefields? How to avoid getting there, and how to solve disputes earlier when they are still small. Is this even possible, or do we need even more enforcement? If it does reach arbitration, how to make it actually work?
- 2 min per panelist (12m)
- 1 min counterpoint ( 6m)
- field questions (~10m)
- Visions of the future.
What needs to be done today for tomorrow? Stay the course? Steer in a new direction?
- 1 min per panelist ( 6m)
- Open questions (to end)
Notes edit
Panelists (confirmed to date):
I'm aiming for a 120-min timeframe, with six panelists.
I really want to get at least one panelist from es.wp.
Perhaps having one panelist coming from some other segment of dispute resolution would be best as well — a mediator, I'd think, or an admin knee-deep in AE. Ideas for who to invite?
More interest than first expected. Up to 6-7 panelists? Gets unwieldy, but manageable— would require dropping to 90s/45s per panelist maybe. Trade off some depth for variety.