The Wikback, RIP?

Things are quieter at
Wikback these days
Image from FlickrOne of my earliest postings was about UninvitedCompany's Wikback which is a forum designed to be a place where folk with an interest in Wikipedia and WMF projects could discuss things. (and one that would be run somewhat differently than Wikipedia Review)

At the time, I opined that there might be some inhibitory effects from some of the actions taken and rules in place, and that sparked 11 comments from various folk. I think that may have been my all time high, or pretty close! (Hi to all 3 of you readers still with me!) Some predicted it would fail, while others defended the idea.

Well, two months have went by since then, and it would appear that the activity levels at the Wikback have died down to very low levels. Apparently, in the past 7 days, there have been just 4 active topics, if this list is to be believed.

Not every forum that is started ends up a success. Sometimes it's just random chance as to whether something clicks. But sometimes it's the rules, the people or whatever. Is that the case here?

Could Wikback still spring to lively life? Or is the current activity level likely to be where things stay indefinitely? Or is it over? What do you think?

Experts

Many systems of governance/management/administration (although not all) rely on elections to select, or partly select leaders/administrators/adjudicators. The English Wikipedia is no different, in that it has a system of elections for administrators, for bureaucrats, and for arbitrators. Some may quibble whether these are pure elections, but there is an aspect of community popular voting to all of them, to be sure.

It is important not to fall into the trap of thinking that because one won a popular vote that one is somehow more qualified on various matters than those that did not. This is an easy trap to fall into, and unfortunately, sometimes, some members of our ArbCom fall into it. The Mantanmoreland case provides some instances of this, in my view.

Here, Uninvited Company opines that the statistical analysis used in the Mantanmoreland case, developed and vetted by many other community members, lacks rigor.

Here, and here, Jpgordon opines that statistical analysis cannot (yet?) be relied upon, but that textual analysis by arbitrators can, and well should, be.

Here, FT2 is giving us a bit of "I know it when I see it..." which should give us pause.

There are many more examples but these suffice. The arbitrators, at least some of them, at least some of the time, think they know more than others about some rather esoteric topics.

Well, I don't agree... not to give the arbitrators too much of a hard time, but no, not always, not by default.

As I said here ... there is absolutely no reason to believe that arbitrators start out knowing any more about anything in particular (just because they won a modified popularity contest) than anyone else about things like evaluating checkuser results, performing and validating statistical analysis, patterns of speech analysis, jurisprudence, or even arbitration, the process, itself.

I suspect I am not the only person that feels this way. For example Alanyst answers Univited Company's opining with some vigor here, saying, in part:

The point is, for those of us who tried to do this the right way -- methodical, objective, transparent, public, open to either conclusion, willing to go where the evidence led -- the message we got back is that such attributes are not desirable in a sockpuppet investigation, and such matters ought to be handled by those with the experience and judgment to make subjective evaluations of private evidence, discuss them in opaque deliberations, and report unattributed findings of inexplicable inconclusiveness. To get that message back from people we generally trust and admire -- the several skeptical arbitrators -- is what remains so difficult to understand.

That is quite strongly worded, if you ask me. But it points to a real problem, but one that's easily fixed if people keep in mind their own limitations. We are all of us human, after all. No one should take offense at being reminded of this.

The WikBack

Wikipedia has harsh critics. Some of them are not welcome on Wikipedia itself for one reason or another.

Wikipedia ArbCom member Uninvited Company has set up a discussion forum called The WikBack, at his own expense, to provide another place to discuss areas for improvement. (for various reasons, some Wikipedia editors prefer not to participate at Wikipedia Review).

This discussion forum has been a mixed success so far. Some lively discussion has ensued, but there also have been those who say it is not as successful a vehicle for discussion as Wikipedia Review. Others may feel that the posting rules at WikBack may tend to inhibit discussion, pointing to, for example, bans of a week for off topic posting (after warning) as being inhibitory.

Is the existence of WikBack good or bad? Acknowledging that since it is Uninvited Company's forum (he pays the bills) and thus UC has the right to set the rules as he chooses, are they too strict? Too lax? What do you think?

(edit: I spelt the forum name wrong, consistently. Now it's been changed :) )