QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 25th November 2009, 1:22am)
In essence, the ArbCom, as an elite and draconian body of decision-makers operating in secret, is antithetical to the whole nature of Wikipedia, and the clash between the basic ideas underpinning the project and the reality of authority as exercised by the ArbCom has significantly undermined the project's health over the long-term. The ArbCom's consistent indulgence of admin abuse and punishment of ordinary content contributors is reflected in the project's general administrative culture. How many good contributors have been banned as a result of all that, and how many more have left in frustration? How much better would Wikipedia's content be today if its arbitrators and administrators had not been driving contributors away for years? My view is that community-based governance would better reflect the collaborative, bottom-up values at the heart of the project, and that would in turn help to refocus the admin culture and promote a more friendly and fair editorial environment. I can't guarantee that would happen, but I can at least guarantee that it wouldn't be any worse than the current arrangement.
For the record, Arbcom does not represent any "community" - the arbitrators are elected by maybe 100-200 people out of a body of 10.5 million registered users. That percentage doesn't represent any traditional definition of a "community" -- a clique, perhaps, but not a community.
Some people see Arbcom as the top tier of the system. Sadly, Arbcom also seems to confirm the old saying about shit floating to the surface. This may explain a group of people who have repeatedly shown themselves to be vindictive, evasive, hypocritical, blatantly dishonest ("Oh,
that e-mail from six weeks ago?"), rude, unwilling to enforce clearly defined policies (the Risker-approved socks) but eager to invent new policies if it means silencing people they dislike (Risker, again, in her re-block of Greg for...edit summaries?), and clearly not interested in hearing what many people have to say (dismissing input from concerned editors as "shouting from the gallery").
I blame a lot of the high-publicized defections of Wikipedia's editorial population (see the Wall Street Journal article from this week) on Arbcom's inability to dial down the drama decibels. If anything, Arbcom has been pouring fuel on the fire by encouraging more drama through its increasingly erratic inability to govern in a manner that suggests responsible people are in charge.
P.S. I should add that I don't know any of these people outside of Wikipedia and it is easy to assume that they are probably very pleasant and very intelligent in real life -- Wikipedia has a way of bringing out the worst in people.
This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: