The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

[Doc glasgow]

The arbcom bit failed because IMO it was badly thought out - and not bold enough. Th problem was not that arbcom overreached but the limiting factors were the problem.

People objected to it because
1) It reported to arbcom - which made it sound like arbcom were grabbing the power not only to set the body up but also to decide what to do with its recommendations. Better to have the body totally independent.
2) It was appointed. That was never going to wash as a) arbcom were grabbing the power to appoint b) "I wasn't asked therefore oppose"

You should just have set it up and held an election. Its legitimacy would then have rested on the election and not arbcom's fiat. If people hated the idea, then they can elect representatives who want to repudiate it.

The notion of a cross-section who would never be elected to arbcom is good - all sectional interests thus get a stake in it. However, an election is capable of generating that too - if you use the right system. The current system favours those unobjectionable to many - but prohibits any section of the community getting their favoured spokesman elected. That's probably not a bad system for a judiciary that handles sensitive information - most people trust every individual elected. However, a representative policy body is better with a system that encourages significant minorities to elect their favourite sons - and thus feel their views are heard. I'd suggest a support only system, with each voter limited to, say, five supports. That makes Giano a shoe in - but would also allow in less-popular old-hands, one BLP extremist, and some other deep thinkers who's support is deep but not wide.

[One]

The arbcom bit failed because IMO it was badly thought out - and not bold enough. Th problem was not that arbcom overreached but the limiting factors were the problem.

People objected to it because
1) It reported to arbcom - which made it sound like arbcom were grabbing the power not only to set the body up but also to decide what to do with its recommendations. Better to have the body totally independent.
2) It was appointed. That was never going to wash as a) arbcom were grabbing the power to appoint b) "I wasn't asked therefore oppose"

You should just have set it up and held an election. Its legitimacy would then have rested on the election and not arbcom's fiat. If people hated the idea, then they can elect representatives who want to repudiate it.

The notion of a cross-section who would never be elected to arbcom is good - all sectional interests thus get a stake in it. However, an election is capable of generating that too - if you use the right system. The current system favours those unobjectionable to many - but prohibits any section of the community getting their favoured spokesman elected. That's probably not a bad system for a judiciary that handles sensitive information - most people trust every individual elected. However, a representative policy body is better with a system that encourages significant minorities to elect their favourite sons - and thus feel their views are heard. I'd suggest a support only system, with each voter limited to, say, five supports. That makes Giano a shoe in - but would also allow in less-popular old-hands, one BLP extremist, and some other deep thinkers who's support is deep but not wide.

Yeah, the representation is tricky, but support-only might be a promising way to cope with it.

How would you deal with the problem Sarcasticidealist noted elsewhere--that is, obtaining consensus for the creation of such a body. One of the reasons we placed the advisory council under ArbCom is that it was thought we would not need consensus to create it--ArbCom is free to keep its own house. Besides, none of us intended the council to be the ultimate governing body, just a sort of constitutional convention.

An independent structure, however, would seem to need a mandate from somebody in order to have any sort of authority. Or would it also be formally powerless--charged only with drafting policy for later ratification by the community?

[A Horse With No Name]

A benevolent well-informed dictatorship can be a good thing.

And Mussolini was a snazzy dresser who did a killer Louis Prima imitation.

I've said it before and I will say it again -- the only way WP could function correctly is by taking the IMDb approach and have paid professional editors serve in handling all administrative aspects of the web site, including settling of the playground fights currently being screwed up by Arbcom. By having neutral people with no personal stake in any conflict, the "community" would then focus solely on content creation.

Of course, 90% of the "community" would abruptly vanish since they don't actually contribute any content to the site.

Really, who are we going to trust to run Wikipedia? Law school students? High school students? People who never held any managerial job? No serious organization is run in such a stupid manner.

The arbcom bit failed because IMO it was badly thought out - and not bold enough. Th problem was not that arbcom overreached but the limiting factors were the problem.

No, it failed because incompetent people are in charge -- the same reason that any well-intended managerial entity collapses. I don't believe any of these people have real-life qualifications to handle the depth and scope of the relatively meager duties that Arbcom covers -- and when they have to act, they create a shambles at every level.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Sun 29th November 2009, 9:50pm

[GlassBeadGame]

I've said it before and I will say it again -- the only way WP could function correctly is by taking the IMDb approach and have paid professional editors serve in all administrative aspects of the web site, including settling of the playground fights currently being screwed up by Arbcom. By having neutral people with no personal stake in any conflict, the "community" would then focus solely on content creation.

I think it would be good to elaborate on the IMDb model in some detail. From what you describe it seem like a responsible alternative. It also seems something that could be achieved by WMF with a transition that might not be painless but would be achievable.

[A Horse With No Name]

I think it would be good to elaborate on the IMDb model in some detail. From what you describe it seem like a responsible alternative. It also seems something that could be achieved by WMF with a transition that might not be painless but would be achievable.

IMDb is like WP in that all of its content is contributed. However, all of the content is reviewed before it is posted. IMDb employs a staff of editors who go over the information being presented and, based on clearly stated criteria, will determine if information is published or not. If it isn't, the contributor receives an explanation why and advice on how to bring the data up to grade.

IMDb has a forum section where people discuss ideas and ask questions. It can be uncivil at times, but that is par for the cyber course. However, it is miles removed from the rudeness on WP.

Do mistakes get into print on IMDb? Yes, as with any media. But when pointed out, they are quickly removed.

By doing a clear separation of volunteer content contributor and a professional editor/manager corps that is trained and qualified to make decisions of an editorial and managerial nature, everything works without a hitch.

[GlassBeadGame]

I think it would be good to elaborate on the IMDb model in some detail. From what you describe it seem like a responsible alternative. It also seems something that could be achieved by WMF with a transition that might not be painless but would be achievable.

IMDb is like WP in that all of its content is contributed. However, all of the content is reviewed before it is posted. IMDb employs a staff of editors who go over the information being presented and, based on clearly stated criteria, will determine if information is published or not. If it isn't, the contributor receives an explanation why and advice on how to bring the data up to grade.

IMDb has a forum section where people discuss ideas and ask questions. It can be uncivil at times, but that is par for the cyber course. However, it is miles removed from the rudeness on WP.

Do mistakes get into print on IMDb? Yes, as with any media. But when pointed out, they are quickly removed.

By doing a clear separation of volunteer content contributor and a professional editor/manager corps that is trained and qualified to make decisions of an editorial and managerial nature, everything works without a hitch.

How many staff positions does IMDb have? How many do you suppose it would take to carry out similar functions on WP?

[Obesity]

I think it would be good to elaborate on the IMDb model in some detail. From what you describe it seem like a responsible alternative. It also seems something that could be achieved by WMF with a transition that might not be painless but would be achievable.

IMDb is like WP in that all of its content is contributed. However, all of the content is reviewed before it is posted. IMDb employs a staff of editors who go over the information being presented and, based on clearly stated criteria, will determine if information is published or not. If it isn't, the contributor receives an explanation why and advice on how to bring the data up to grade.

IMDb has a forum section where people discuss ideas and ask questions. It can be uncivil at times, but that is par for the cyber course. However, it is miles removed from the rudeness on WP.

Do mistakes get into print on IMDb? Yes, as with any media. But when pointed out, they are quickly removed.

By doing a clear separation of volunteer content contributor and a professional editor/manager corps that is trained and qualified to make decisions of an editorial and managerial nature, everything works without a hitch.

Here's the problem, though..... the IMDb model works well for its content because its scope is so limited.... if all the content is about movies and nothing else, it is much more straightforward to draw up, administer and enforce certain standards.

How could a paid staff (unless it had enormous resources) be expected to solve every nationalist squabble, inclusion/exclusion content controversy, article deletion, not to mention sifting through every contribution to determine whether or not it was true/serious/verifiable/vandalism/etc.

This post has been edited by Obesity: Sun 29th November 2009, 10:28pm

[A Horse With No Name]

How many staff positions does IMDb have? How many do you suppose it would take to carry out similar functions on WP?

Offhand, I don't know. I believe they are part-time and spread across different locations.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

And Mussolini was a snazzy dresser who did a killer Louis Prima imitation.


Really, who are we going to trust to run Wikipedia? Law school students? High school students? People who never held any managerial job?

How about Randy From Boise...he may be wrong, but at least he is certain he's right and that's what really matters in the land of Wikiality



The late, great Rod Steiger used to come on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and do a hilarious Mussolini impression. I miss that.

For the record-Jimbozo lacks the competence and character to be dictator of a men's lavatory.
Besides, there's his whole Randroid thing against the use of overt coercion. That's why for the longest time he did not give orders but rather made suggestions. Let me suggest that if he tried to act as a unilateral dictator today, he may well end up sharing Il Duce's fate.

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine): Sun 29th November 2009, 10:40pm

[A Horse With No Name]

Here's the problem, though..... the IMDb model works well for its content because its scope is so limited.... if all the content is about movies and nothing else, it is much more straightforward to draw up, administer and enforce certain standards.

Not exactly a limited scope, given the depth of coverage devoted to the subject.

How could a paid staff (unless it had enormous resources) be expected to solve every nationalist squabble, inclusion/exclusion content controversy, article deletion, not to mention sifting through every contribution to determine whether or not it was true/serious/verifiable/vandalism/etc.

Simple - you deny the nationalists, inclusion/exclusion and other idiots a platform to bloviate from. By having non-involved outsiders as administrators, rather than POV-pushers and hypocrites, you defuse the drama at its source.

As for sifting through contributions -- it can take up to a week, sometimes two, for new information to get on the IMDb. But that means the contributions are properly reviewed -- as opposed to the whack-a-mole game called New Page Patrol.

[Kurt M. Weber]

Voting is now underway.

I will probably win.

[Nerd]

Voting is now underway.

I will probably win.

I hope you do. You're a good candidate.

[Trick cyclist]

Voting is now underway.

I will probably win.

In this context does winning mean being elected or avoiding all the work stress and enmity by not being elected?

[Kurt M. Weber]

It means ur mom lololololroflcakes

[RMHED]

It means ur mom lololololroflcakes

Oh dear, I fear Mr. Weber has slipped into illiteracy.

I propose a 3 minute silence for this tragic loss to the English language.

[GlassBeadGame]

It means ur mom lololololroflcakes

Oh dear, I fear Mr. Weber has slipped into illiteracy.

I propose a 3 minute silence for this tragic loss to the English language.

I think he's entering text in tongues, probably pandering to the evangelical vote.

[RMHED]

It means ur mom lololololroflcakes

Oh dear, I fear Mr. Weber has slipped into illiteracy.

I propose a 3 minute silence for this tragic loss to the English language.

I think he's entering text in tongues, probably pandering to the evangelical vote.

I've heard those evangelicals are partial to a bit of tongue, I blame the parents.

[CharlotteWebb]

I think he's entering text in tongues, probably pandering to the evangelical vote.

I've heard those evangelicals are partial to a bit of tongue, I blame the parents.

^ Extreme libertarian.

[Kurt M. Weber]

You should blame Canada.

[A Horse With No Name]

I think he's entering text in tongues, probably pandering to the evangelical vote.

Sorry, Pastor Theo is not voting in this election.