Fellow Wikipedians: Let's Talk About Canvassing

[Randy from Boise]

Let me open with a couple quotes...

First, lemme quote myself...

Timbo's Rule 2. So-called "anti-canvassing" rules are a mechanism by means of which a narrow clique can avoid broad discussion and decision by a larger and more inclusive group. (Feb. 2012)

And lemme quote Wikipediocracy's Favorite Guy Ever, Jimmy Wales...

"...I don't like the term 'canvassing', even on-wiki. I think it's more often used by people who want to shut down an open dialogue than people who have a righteous cause for concern. Another word for 'canvassing' is "engaging more people in the discussion" — it's open to all sides. The idea that it's bad to go out and recruit editors when you see a problem in Wikipedia is problematic. That isn't to say that some kinds of approaches to that aren't annoying — they are — but in general, this paranoia about it is not justified." (Jan. 31, 2013)

Since we all understand that decisions are not made by majority vote, but by strength of argument in accordance with policy, what the hell are people so afraid of?

Canvassing goes on all the time. Just about every single successful RFA is backed with canvassing, for starters... Tell me I'm wrong about that.

Why is making a concern known to a broad public so dangerous in your minds? Or, more properly, why are we so paranoid?

t

[Vigilant]

It goes on constantly.

Laura Hale on Google Groups for Hopau and her pet paraolympian classification articles comes leaping to mind.

IRC is/was a go to when you needed to rally support for your position.

There are never consequences for those 'of the body'.

[Paragon Deku]

As I said in the other thread, I do find it amusing which forms of canvassing are considered "acceptable." One time an AfD I requested related to the Anime wikiproject was practically immediately flooded with members of that project all voting to keep it. I don't inherently think there's anything wrong with editors on a related wikiproject wanting to be involved, but the Anime project in particular tends to take things rather personally. The creator of the page DM'd me on discord and asked me if I "hated them" because I opened the AfD.
I think that "acceptable" forms of canvassing are used as a cudgel by entrenched editors who take AfD's, RfC's, etc. far too personally, and that it provides a convenient way of sniping people you don't like for talking about ongoing discussions publicly on other forums.

[Kraken]

In this day and age it could be as simple as a palpable fear that Wikipedia doesn't have enough experienced and willing editors (typically Admins) who can wade through a million and one canvassed comments, when only a small handful of them will be making useful contributions.

When was the last time anyone even called for a three person closing panel? That last time I saw it, they had to wait weeks.

But that's a very generous interpretation.

When in doubt, assume pure self interest.

[Randy from Boise]

In this day and age it could be as simple as a palpable fear that Wikipedia doesn't have enough experienced and willing editors (typically Admins) who can wade through a million and one canvassed comments, when only a small handful of them will be making useful contributions.

When was the last time anyone even called for a three person closing panel? That last time I saw it, they had to wait weeks.

But that's a very generous interpretation.

When in doubt, assume pure self interest.

Ah, but there have been many, many, many examples of external, public canvassing at AfD and none have them have presented the slightest problem.

The real potential flooding danger revolves around a malefactor, say Boratistan, using state employees to subvert and skew content — if not on the English WP, then on the local Boratistanian wiki.

Instead we in a tizzy, all aflutter, because someone mentioned a topic of discussion on a message board. Good gracious! What a breach of protocol!!!


t

[AndyTheGrump]

The level of Wikipedia paranoia about 'external canvassing' seems almost to have reached the point where the mere fact that something has been discussed externally is seen by some as sufficient reason to close down any further debate. This is of course deeply unhealthy, if not downright dangerous, and open to manipulation.

An unethical Wikipediocracy (I think this one still has ethics of a sort, though some regulars might find the concept hard to handle...) could, were it into looking for ways to pay for the server etc, offer to 'discuss things' loudly here, for a fee, and thereby ensure that they remain undiscussed (or at least discussed properly) in the one place where they really need to be. A nice little earner.