This is interesting, though I have a different take on the matter that I'll post here later, if you don't mind, when I get a chance. One thing struck me, and made me smile, as I skimmed through this though. Slapping up a photo of the US Senate as an example of "what we need more of" will probably make a lot of folks, regardless of homeland or political persuasion, chuckle. The American Senate is a rather dysfunctional (not to much undemocratic—both in terms of its functioning and the manner in which its members end up there, despite protestations to the contrary in high school civics classes) institution. I'd argue that it's hardly a model for good governance. Probably you didn't intend it that way but, you know, just sayin'. :-)
I'd propose an alternative photo of a smooth-functioning, highly democratic institution that could serve as a model for good governance here on Wikipedia, however I cannot think of any such body offhand. Anyhow I'll try to follow up with some more serious thoughts here later since I'd like to engage with the argument you are making. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I wrote this on my user page the other day, and I think it fits here: Because there is no community, and because the consensus model of site administration is irreparably broken, either the Foundation will take control of en.wikipedia by the end of 2010, or will direct the Arbitration Committee to do so. I expect the Foundation's hand will most likely be forced by those two words I'm not allowed to say because one can get banned for it or a public-relations disaster several orders of magnitude larger than Siegenthaler.
(EDIT: would have helped had I signed this originally, right?) - Robster2001 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Good essay. I think you've nailed it. Your ideas about elected policy and content committees are right on. Cla68 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem with the ACPD is not that it exists, it's that there is no community input into the membership. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I am reminded of a quotation:
"We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it."
"That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do."
"Then they should be made to."
-- Powers T 14:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hebrew Wikipedia has a parliament voting system for policy changes. (Some changes it has enacted: English interwikis go above all other language interwikis, and AFD debates must be closed after exactly seven days, so late votes don't count.) After preliminary discussion, an admin opens debate on the parliament page, which is admin-protected so that any old user can't put a proposal there without prior discussion. Only active users (90 edits in the last three months) may vote. The Hebrew community is smaller and more insular, but as a governance system it works just fine, and actually does manage to effect change with anything that garners a 2/3 majority in most cases, or a plurality for "either/or" propositions, as I recall from 2008. Hebrew Wikipedia has no ArbCom, and has a community process for revoking the rights of inactive or misbehaving admins. It's not a perfect system, but it's better IMO than English Wikipedia's system, and should be considered in a discussion of alternative governance models. Chutznik (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The nature of slippery slopes is one which tends to prevent readers from disputing any single point without slipping back to the bottom and disputing the whole package. Well, I cannot believe that the solution is giving individuals more power. If a problem exists it is not the people in charge, but the bull-headed veteran editor who wields guideline and policy like one of the four horsemen. Editors, not leaders, constantly bite newbies and make it a point to tell them about it using templates clearly advertising the (minor) failure of the recipient. It is no wonder that their only contributions, typically, are the ones being dragged through AFD a week after they summarily retired.
I have to give it to you that the system of consensus can be easily derailed, but I was disappointed to see that you mention the swiss policies which allow this behavior yet do not mention policy reform in your solution. Rather, the answer seems to be a new group of leaders to help interpret the policies. Remember, the leaders didn't vote on these guidelines, editors did. I'd bet half of the brokenness you are calling attention to can be fixed without giving a single person more power, instead go nominate WP:IAR for WP:MFD.
It reads as if you are throwing your arms up in defeat because the bureaucracy is not growing fast enough to keep up with the community. Well I am a selfish, one-man WikiSloth who edits only for my own pleasure, and in my personal version of a drama article I would be leaving in a huff because of bureaucracy.
P.S. I would totally support your consensus change. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
All too often, it seems people are willing to talk about "Wikipedia" as though it were one product or community, when i believe the reality is that it's a vast interlocking collection of products of a vast interlocking collection of communities. And some of those communities are much healthier than others.
In the areas of Wikipedia I work on, I have found many of the institutions you criticize in your essay to be very effective. Not always, but for most of the day-to-day work that produces high quality content and draws in large numbers of contributors. But the situation you describe does not match my experience of the project.
Bold leadership happens all the time on more local levels that don't attract so much attention; and in the areas where it does, strong editing communities thrive. I try to focus my own energy on making more of that happen, and for the most part leave the dysfunctional areas of the project alone. I have a great deal of experience around here, but unlike you, I feel powerless to assess what the predominant theme is; while I can see how it's tempting to focus on the most widely publicized issues in forming a conclusion, I believe that gives you a pretty biased sample.
So, a thought for you: I think your essay would be much more compelling if you were to cite specific examples that support your conclusions, and make the case that your examples are "more typical" than the kind I might cite to show the opposite. -Pete (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rootology. Sorry to see that's come to this. Per your recent CHU request, could you just clarify (either there, here or to me directly) why you need to change your username because you're resigning at meta? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is really broken and failing, then heck, I'll go down with the ship.Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 04:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree when you said that Jimbo had no authority. Take, for instance, the Wikiversity incident (see this signpost article for more information). Jimbo, after hearing about the incident, immediately deleted the page, indeffed a user, desysopped another, and considered the deletion of Wikiversity. Surely he has some authority over the projects? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The content of your user page sums up Wikipedia as a whole better than anything I've ever heard. You are dead on. I do wish you would reconsider your retirement. This site needs more people like you. Wikipedia will always be the way you describe on your user page, and will probably even get worse, unless people like you are willing to stand and fight.Mk5384 (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Secondplanet (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I'm a minor editor. By nature, I'm reactive, pugnacious, potentially violent, and periodically confrontational. Some of the rules of Wikipedia run up against my essential nature, and force me to be civil when I'd rather be self-indulgent So it's more than a bit ironic for me to say that this page is a quart low on Sense of Humor. It's six years since the main body of the User Page was written--and Wikipedia is still an excellent source of information. It's not perfect, and it will never be the equivalent of the the Encyclopedia Britannica in its heyday. Readers need to read carefully and pay close attention to the reference list when evaluating the veracity and utility of any article. Yes there are cabals of editors who control articles and categories of articles and poison the atmosphere around some of them. But Wikipedia was designed to be structurally loose and structurally non-authoritarian, so islands of less than perfection are inevitable. "While bankers' nieces seek perfection, expecting all the gifts that wise men bring." If enough Wikipedia editors continue to do their tasks in good faith, it will "muddle through" (as the Brits say) at the least of it. Regards Tapered (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Keeping in mind WP:NOBAN, in my opinion it is best to leave this userpage-essay in its original state and not to redact its content. Shearonink (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
Ten years! |
---|