User talk:Jossi

There are at least two kinds of games.

One could be called finite, the other infinite.

The finite game is played for the purpose of winning, and thereby ending the game.

An infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play ... and bringing as many persons as possible into the play.

Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries.

Finite players are serious; infinite games are playful.

Finite players try to control the game, predict everything that will happen, and set the outcome in advance. They are serious and determined about getting that outcome. They try to fix the future based on the past.

Infinite players enjoy being surprised. Continuously running into something they didn't know will ensure that the game will go on. The meaning of the past changes depending on what happens in the future.

All games are inherently voluntary. There might be consequences of not playing, but there is always a choice required. There are certain rules and boundaries that appear to be externally defined, and you choose to follow them or not. If you stop following them you aren't playing the game any longer.

There is no rule that says you have to follow the rules, and there is no rule that says you have to play. If you have to play, you cannot really play.

All finite games have rules. If you follow the rules you are playing the game. If you don't follow the rules you aren't playing.

Infinite players play with rules and boundaries. They aren't taking them serious, and they can never be trapped by them, because they use rules and boundaries as part of their playing.

Players can do what they do seriously, because they must do it, because they must survive to the end, and are afraid of the consequences of not playing or not winning. Or, players can do everything they do playfully, always knowing they have a choice, having no need to survive the way they are, allowing every element of the play to transform them, taking pleasure in every surprise they meet. Those are the differences between finite and infinite players.

You can play finite games within an infinite game. You can not play infinite games within a finite game.

There is only but one infinite game.

Paraphrased from James P. Carse, Finite and infinite games: A Vision of Life in Play and Possibility

≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

[Unsure if you wish for messages on your talk page; if you don't, please remove at your leisure.]
Very sorry to see you leave, Jossi. I fully respect your decision to retire, but do know that I would be very happy to see you make a return to actively contributing at some point.
My very best, AGK 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. I disagreed with some of your decisions, but think you have much to offer the community and the Project. Don't let some sour grapes disinterest you - make grappa! :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see you leave the project; you were a valuable asset to this community. Best wishes, seicer | talk | contribs 00:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions were benevolent, reasoned and always truthful, in my mind; it is a surprise that you departed so suddenly. It is a real shame you have left. Good luck. Caulde 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(As above, please move or remove this message at your discretion if you don't want it here.) I can't say we always got along, but I certainly always was glad to see you in a difficult situation. Best of luck to you, wherever that great infinite game takes you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry to see you go. When I was a newbie you were extraordinarily kind and patient with me and I greatly appreciated it. Best of luck to you! Renee (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit thick sometimes. So, hum, real life is the only infinite game, wikipedia is a finite game. Since wikipedia is a finite game, at some point in wikipedia's game you stop running into surprising stuff that you didn't know about, and players wind up being being trapped by wikipedia's rules, being afraid of consequences of not "winning", etc. Text between lines: wikipedia ougth to be an infinite game, but it's not. Did I get it right? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close, Enric ...
Look at it this way, collaboration is the antithesis of winning. Players in a game can be focused in terminating the game by winning or by declaring once side as the loser. In collaboration, all players are focused intently in keeping the game going.
Wikipedia is indeed a finite game, but has embodied many traits of an infinite game. For example , there is WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it., i.e. if a rule prevents the game to continue, ignore it. The challenge is, thought, as Wikipedia grows in importance, authority, and reach, it's basic principles of collegial collaboration, civility, anybody can edit, free content, and neutral point of view (WP:FIVE) are being challenged by more traditional forces, which I would call routinization. This routinization is visible in the quite large body of policies, guidelines, manuals of style, etc. that has developed as well as the processes developed to keep the game going: Arbitration, Administrators, Page protection, Bans, Blocks etc. (Note that I am not judging that to be good or bad, simply stating a fact: after all I was quite involved in these aspects myself. )
As soon as these routinizing aspects begin consuming too many resources — and in WP the only resource is volunteer time (besides $$ needed to run the servers and keep a small staff) — the purpose of the game begin to be lost: Rather than build new articles, improve new ones, expand the number of players, encourage participation, etc. the most experienced people and those with most time, tend to spend their wiki-time in areas that limit play. I am not arguing that these tasks are not needed; they are. Only that over time, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia get lost or constrained in such a manner that it impinges in these principles and may eventually lead to terminating play. As an editor that invested quite a bit of time in that area, I am aware of the dichotomy it presents and the challenges in bridging it.
Another challenge is when players try to bring about other games into Wikipedia than Wikpiedia's own. Players try and transpose the games they have chosen to play IRL, into this project. That is why we have WP:BATTLE, the other side of WP:WRW. Just witness the ongoing political, scientific, religious, and other such disputes that have been developing over the last years (check WP:RFAR/C for a good sample), and the many efforts by the community to overcome these challenges. A notable point is that in almost every arbitration case (with some notable exceptions), the result is the imposition of restrictions to participate fully in the game ... "in order to continue playing, you are now restricted from playing", an obvious contradiction.
So, as long as there are editors that will do everything possible to keep the game going, and do that with such grace and diligence that does not result in restricting play, Wikipedia may have a chance. But if these editors that are intent in winning the game at the expense of keeping the playing going, become those that steer the project forward, then it may not. My opinion is that Wikipedia is at that cross-road. The new Arbitration committee, which IMO has more diversity than ever before, as well as having people that I admire for the brilliance of their minds and the generosity of their hearts, may be the ones tasked to see this through, that is if they managed to bring the community around to support their efforts when exploring these challenges.
Per Carse, it boils down to choice If you have to play, you cannot play. It seems that those that want to win the game, are usually those that feel compelled to play it, and are those that play it too seriously for their own good. And those that want to keep the game going are usually those that edit with a smile on they face, enjoying the game, bringing new players to the game and expanding the possibility of play.
So, my decision to retire is based on that choice: because I can. I said this without judgment of other players: I wish them wisdom in their own choices, playfulness in their play, and my best.
Happy New Year,
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm happy that you are not retiring because of bitterness. Myself, I'm staying if only because I can't resist seeing all the process first hand , you know, watching train crashes in slow motion :) I don't understand everything that you say, but I'll take your comments and try to be more playful on my editing. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm only seeing your edits now after you have left I'm also sorry to see you go and hope you reconsider in due course. You may be happy to know that I'm making some progress with COI reform (one small step at a time), for example WP:NPA and WP:WHYCOI. Perhaps you would consider helping out with such things, if not involving yourself in editing as such. In particular you and I share the view of volunteer time being a precious resource while 1's and 0's are a commodity, and I hope to "leverage" my contributions by trimming back some of the areas where time is wasted (e.g. 50k AfDs over 5k articles). Would you consider helping me write an essay on "respect for human time" or similar? -- samj inout 13:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]