Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[Eva Destruction]

Surprised this hasn't already been mentioned here, especially since it seems to be composed of 75% WR members. While I'm more than willing to be pleasantly surprised, this looks like a very peculiar idea to me. (My thoughts on the matter are here).

[Eva Destruction]

FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this. Part of Wikipedia's problem is that those at the top don't like listening to people who aren't positive about the project. Someone willing to say "this project is failing" and articulate enough to explain why – as opposed to some of the "Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed" brigade – might be just what Jimbo needs.

Regarding my preliminary opinions of this particular proposal, to save people trawling through threaded discussions for them, my personal opinion on it is:

I'm sure everyone involved has the best of intentions, but this looks designed to become Wikipedia's version of the European Parliament; a meaningless, unelected and unaccountable committee with no formal powers, which ends up only existing to rubber-stamp and legitimise decisions. Maybe I'm being cynical, but the current list of members looks like a deliberate attempt to create sinecures for the noisiest critics of the current setup, on a "better inside the tent pissing out" principle. This just looks like Arbcom's revival of Jimbo's old arbitrary appointments without the need for anything messy like elections or selection processes.

No disrespect to the individual people who've accepted, but I really don't think this is a good idea from either angle; either you're a fan of Wikipedia in which case it's diverting your energy into a talking shop which Jimmy Wales will ignore, or you're an opponent of Wikipedia in which case the energies of critics are being syphoned off into this heat-sink page (as well as the blow to the credibility dealt by the critics of the system accepting an appointment to what looks like God-king Jimbo's House of Lords.)

[Sarcasticidealist]

FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this.

Oh, I strongly agree, provided they're acting in good faith. But I believe that Kelly has a self-admitted history of acting otherwise with respect to her involvement in Wikipedia.

[Malleus]

FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this.

I agree with that too, even though I've clearly upset Greg's 10-year-old daughter by putting a naughty word on the main page. I'm content to sit back and see whether this new initiative can make a difference. I hope that it can.

[thekohser]

FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this.

I agree with that too, even though I've clearly upset Greg's 10-year-old daughter by putting a naughty word on the main page. I'm content to sit back and see whether this new initiative can make a difference. I hope that it can.

She's not 10. But, no... you haven't upset her, you silly twit. You've upset me, in that you feel you are a better judge of what is okay for her to be reading about on a tax-advantaged website in a publicly-funded school, than I do.

Believe me -- in the short term, I'm delighted that this crap (humorous as it may be for us adults) is pushed to the front page of Wikipedia, while Jimbo jets around saying that Wikipedia is rightfully used in schools. I hope the Jenna Jameson article is in the queue. Then smotherbox, too. It presents, then, a clear example of how unaware of social mores that Wikipedia's "free culture" leadership is, which then makes it more vulnerable to attack.

At that point, it will be a piece of cake getting a national school policy movement going, to ban Wikipedia outright from public schools.