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).

[Nerd]

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).

I brought it up a minute after you posted on a different thread, here. I agree with all your points in any case.

[Sarcasticidealist]

1. The state of governance on Wikipedia is such that we must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore we must do this.

It would be nice if this was a body that had some kind of decision-making authority (though in that case it would clearly have to be elected), but this is, well, something. Colour me cautiously supportive.

[Nerd]

1. The state of governance on Wikipedia is such that we must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore we must do this.

It would be nice if this was a body that had some kind of decision-making authority (though in that case it would clearly have to be elected), but this is, well, something. Colour me cautiously supportive.

I don't follow that logic. We don't have to do this. This is just a front anyway.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I don't follow that logic.

That's because it's a famous comical example of fallacious thinking; it's just that in this case I think there's a grain of truth to it.

This is just a front anyway.

For what? The Trojans? The Tamil Tigers? The Trojan Tigers? The hounds with bees in their mouths, so when they bark they shoot bees at you?

[Nerd]

This is just a front anyway.

For what? The Trojans? The Tamil Tigers? The Trojan Tigers? The hounds with bees in their mouths, so when they bark they shoot bees at you?

It's a pretence that arbcom actually care about the community. They appoint a bunch of people into this ridiculous "council", that have no actual power or authority to speak of, simply to look good in front of the gullible Wikipedians. Nothing has changed here from yesterday, except there is more pointless bureaucracy. Why did people like Giano accept the invitation, when they could be better spending their time working on articles?

[Kelly Martin]

If this group plans to conduct its business somewhere other than on Wikipedia itself, it might accomplish something. Doing it on Wikipedia itself will result in the discussions being continually disrupted by the peanut gallery.

I'd consider volunteering except that they'd probably insist that I use Wikipedia to volunteer, and I'm not about to actually log into Wikipedia (I'm not sure I even remember my password) just to do that. And I don't have an email address for Kirill.

[Sarcasticidealist]

It's a pretence that arbcom actually care about the community.

Ah yes, when all they're really interested in doing is lounging around in togas having grapes fed to them by attractive rollbackers.

Why did people like Giano accept the invitation, when they could be better spending their time working on articles?

Because Giano is at least as interested in causing/involving himself in drama as he is in editing articles (in fairness, his interest in both seems quite high).

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't follow that logic.

That's because it's a famous comical example of fallacious thinking; it's just that in this case I think there's a grain of truth to it.

This is just a front anyway.

For what? The Trojans? The Tamil Tigers? The Trojan Tigers? The hounds with bees in their mouths, so when they bark they shoot bees at you?

It might be worth something if ArbCom invited people in dispute resolution disciplines outside Wikipedia to provide advise in re-tooling their process. They could probably find some decent people with the relevant background who would help for free. This however will be a complete waste of time.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I'd consider volunteering except that they'd probably insist that I use Wikipedia to volunteer, and I'm not about to actually log into Wikipedia (I'm not sure I even remember my password) just to do that. And I don't have an email address for Kirill.

I interpreted it as a request that you send the Arb Comm list an e-mail.

Also, why would you consider volunteering? To accomplish something, or to amuse yourself at Wikipedia's expense? I've no doubt you'd be successful in whichever of those was your true objective, let me make clear.

[Kelly Martin]

Also, why would you consider volunteering? To accomplish something, or to amuse yourself at Wikipedia's expense? I've no doubt you'd be successful in whichever of those was your true objective, let me make clear.

I still hold forth some hope that Wikipedia's core purpose could be salvaged with enough commitment from stakeholders. This is the best hope I've seen for that in a long time. Also, I've spent a lot of time thinking about what's wrong with Wikipedia and have many ideas (some good, most probably bad) on how to improve it, mostly unhampered by any involvement in the day-to-day drama of the ongoing site.

I'm sure they're not interested in my services anyway, so I won't bother with this further. If someone here wants to convey my offer to the appropriate parties, they're welcome to do so. My email address is well-known, and I can always be contacted via a WR PM.

[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.

[Kelly Martin]

But I believe that Kelly has a self-admitted history of acting otherwise with respect to her involvement in Wikipedia.

I've always acted in good faith with respect to Wikipedia; it's just that my goals have not always aligned with those of other Wikipedians.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I've always acted in good faith with respect to Wikipedia; it's just that my goals have not always aligned with those of other Wikipedians.

And you've never knowingly allowed people to believe that you were pursuing the same goals as them?

I don't feel like doing any research, so I'll take your word for it if you tell me that I'm full of it, but I thought you'd characterized your motivations in being on Wikipedia -- at least at the end -- as "trolling" and "bossing people around".

[GlassBeadGame]

I've always acted in good faith with respect to Wikipedia; it's just that my goals have not always aligned with those of other Wikipedians.

And you've never knowingly allowed people to believe that you were pursuing the same goals as them?

I don't feel like doing any research, so I'll take your word for it if you tell me that I'm full of it, but I thought you'd characterized your motivations in being on Wikipedia -- at least at the end -- as "trolling" and "bossing people around".

Seems likely to me Kelly was better motivated than this but for all the good it did she might have seen very little reason to bother to defend her motives.

[Kelly Martin]

I thought you'd characterized your motivations in being on Wikipedia -- at least at the end -- as "trolling" and "bossing people around".

I've claimed to be a troll, yes, but that itself was satire based on Wikipedia's anomalous definite of "troll". I don't recall ever characterizing my conduct as "bossing other people around". I am a take-charge sort of person (comes from knowing that in any gathering of random people the odds are that I'm probably the smartest person there; please note that my intelligence is not tempered in any way by humility) and that tends to rub people who like to think they're smart, but aren't, the wrong way. Wikipedia doesn't deal well with take-charge types of people; people there care less about results than you'd expect for an encyclopedia project.

Toward the end of my activitiy on Wikipedia, yes, I did engage in some actions which had purposes other than that evident on their face: my second RfA, which I fully expected to fail, was agreed to for the main purpose of it failing and failing badly so that people would stop asking me to run for admin. The side purpose, of creating drama and slightly more general discontent with the RfA process, was not unwelcome. My second ArbCom candidacy was primarily intended to get under Geogre's skin; I knew I had no hope of being elected but felt that it was important that Geogre not be elected an arbitrator and deliberately crafted my actions to goad an outburst from him; in this regard I was successful.

There was a time in which I held forth some hope of rehabilitating my image within the Wikipedia community, but I realize that that is a foolish hope, and there is no point in trying. My goal now with respect to Wikipedia is to find ways to minimize the damage it does to humanity, by undermining its credibility and public perception, and by (to what limited degree I can) altering its community practices to curb its worst excesses. (Undermining Wikipedia's credibility also benefits me by making it easire to dismiss the defamatory material Wikipedia continues to publish about me, material which it has, to date, refused to remove, or even acknowledge exists.)

Wikipedia needs to pull itself out of the Cult of Jimbo. I realize that this is very unlikely to happen, but I remain the eternal optimist on this issue. Having a noncultie on their council would likely be of some benefit to them, even if they can't see it.

[Guido den Broeder]

It's a move in the wrong direction, a futile attempt to regain some personal credibility rather than to solve the issues at hand.

[Cla68]

Obviously, a council such as this one, without any formal, decision-making or implementing authority, is not as strong of a step towards a change in Wikipedia governance as I would like to see, but it's a small step, at least. We'll see how it goes. Perhaps they can create an on-wiki forum for the council, like the ArbCom noticeboard, where the council can have their discussions on the front page, with everyone else allowed to comment on the talk page.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Cedric]

(IMG:http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc358/WRCedric/imageaxd.jpg) Well . . . you know.

[everyking]

This is junk. An advisory council to the ArbCom? While I freely admit that the ArbCom needs advice--and lots of it!--a toothless body working under an incompetent and wrongheaded committee, with its membership decided through "invitations", is not progress. I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums. Everyone who accepted an "invitation" should resign.

[Kelly Martin]

This is junk. An advisory council to the ArbCom? While I freely admit that the ArbCom needs advice--and lots of it!--a toothless body working under an incompetent and wrongheaded committee, with its membership decided through "invitations", is not progress. I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums. Everyone who accepted an "invitation" should resign.

Didn't get an invitation, did you?

[everyking]

This is junk. An advisory council to the ArbCom? While I freely admit that the ArbCom needs advice--and lots of it!--a toothless body working under an incompetent and wrongheaded committee, with its membership decided through "invitations", is not progress. I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums. Everyone who accepted an "invitation" should resign.

Didn't get an invitation, did you?

Well, of course I wouldn't get one! I'm a Wikipedia felon, Kelly, as I'm sure you'll recall. With my record, it's a wonder I'm trusted to even fix a typo. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums.

That is a better system, but it involves granting powers that do not currently exist (i.e. the power to force a referendum). How do you think Arb Comm's more vociferous critics -- such as, to select an example purely at random, you -- react to Arb Comm creating a committee and giving it powers that nobody else currently has? Do you think there's even the tiniest chance that you'd be running around shrieking about its power grab?

[everyking]

I proposed a much superior alternative yesterday--a reforms committee elected by the community itself, which would formulate and present reforms to the community as referendums.

That is a better system, but it involves granting powers that do not currently exist (i.e. the power to force a referendum). How do you think Arb Comm's more vociferous critics -- such as, to select an example purely at random, you -- react to Arb Comm creating a committee and giving it powers that nobody else currently has? Do you think there's even the tiniest chance that you'd be running around shrieking about its power grab?

If the ArbCom created such a committee itself, decided its composition, and retained power over its decisions, yes, I suppose so. But if its power was derived from the community and its composition was decided by the community, no.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Surprised this hasn't already been mentioned here, especially since it seems to be composed of 75% WR members.

If this is true, is this just giving them the benefit of all the good thought going on here with none of the pain and embarrassment of reading some of the more funnier or more acutely critical stuff?

If it is an enfranchisement of the spirit of WR, why not recognize it and call it "The Wikipedia Review Council"?

A promotion sideways, like the appointment of a diplomat to some far off region, is always a great way of disarming critics whilst getting back to 'business as usual'.

"Look, we done something. We are never going to credit you. Now leave us alone".

I would underline the need for external - professional - appointments. There are plenty real people of integrity, using their own names, putting their own careers at stake, in the ombudsperson/mediation world. The only way forward would be a clean sweep of the 'Cult of Jimbo' cronies, including Queen Jimbo himself, and the appointment of truly independent, professional and liable parties.

[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.

[sbrown]

If the ArbCom created such a committee itself, decided its composition, and retained power over its decisions, yes, I suppose so. But if its power was derived from the community and its composition was decided by the community, no.

Im really looking forward to the elections. Theyll make the Arbcom elections look sensible. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[MZMcBride]

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.

You realize they'll just use their phones, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Or use a proxy or ... whatever. This is, of course, if you can even get an encyclopedia banned. Until Wikipedia's usefulness can be replaced by a comparable site, it will continue to dominate, with or without permission from a school board.

[Malleus]

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.

I don't know why you're so surprised you silly twit. I feel that I'm a better judge of many things than you are.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[toddy]

Am I the only one who finds the fact that this "Advisory council" is made up of two members of Arbcom? Surely the ony way such a group could be of any use is if it was actually independent? But then, Arbcom wouldn't be able to manipulate the consensus to ensure that nothing that they don't like actually gets recommended, could they?

Another excellent play from Kirill here, using his Arbcom vote to approve a council on which he will serve... frankly I wonder if any of the people in this Politburo have even heard the word "integrity" - although it is clear that it's not change they are after, it's legitimisation from a few outspoken critics of the system. Nice work.

[Somey]

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development_convened]Surprised this hasn't already been mentioned here[/url], especially since it seems to be composed of 75% WR members.

If this is true, is this just giving them the benefit of all the good thought going on here with none of the pain and embarrassment of reading some of the more funnier or more acutely critical stuff?

It's really more like 33 percent, not 75 percent, based on the list I'm seeing now. I've never even heard of four of them... Moreover, of the six who have been participating WR members, only Giano and (ex-member) Rootology have ever spent a significant amount of time being blocked or banned. Jennavecia (Lara) probably has the largest WR post count, but she's been known to disagree with the majority here on more than one occasion... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I doubt anything like this could really going to do much good unless the members can help make technical decisions, i.e., drive the implementation of new software features, changes to the wording of disclaimers and templates, maybe even the UI itself - things of that nature. And it's clearly stated that this group isn't going to have any actual authority.

The whole thing is too vague anyway. If they're just looking to improve the way WP handles disputes, that's fine, but at the risk of sounding overly cynical, I've always believed that the two goals of "editor retention" and "better encyclopedia" are incompatible with each other on Wikipedia, and if they're hoping to change that they're going to need a specific mandate, and yes, outside expertise as well.

[Kelly Martin]

The whole thing is too vague anyway. If they're just looking to improve the way WP handles disputes, that's fine, but at the risk of sounding overly cynical, I've always believed that the two goals of "editor retention" and "better encyclopedia" are incompatible with each other on Wikipedia, and if they're hoping to change that they're going to need a specific mandate, and yes, outside expertise as well.

"Editor retention" is vague, and depends on them recognizing that not all Wikipedia "users" are "editors". I don't think they've made this realization yet.

Wikipedia needs to get rid of, or at least restrict the privileges of, many of its users, if it wants to improve either editor retention or encyclopedic quality. I doubt there is any will to do this, however.

[Eva Destruction]

The whole thing is too vague anyway. If they're just looking to improve the way WP handles disputes, that's fine, but at the risk of sounding overly cynical, I've always believed that the two goals of "editor retention" and "better encyclopedia" are incompatible with each other on Wikipedia, and if they're hoping to change that they're going to need a specific mandate, and yes, outside expertise as well.

"Editor retention" is vague, and depends on them recognizing that not all Wikipedia "users" are "editors". I don't think they've made this realization yet.

Wikipedia needs to get rid of, or at least restrict the privileges of, many of its users, if it wants to improve either editor retention or encyclopedic quality. I doubt there is any will to do this, however.

Amen. "Everyone can edit" and "Best possible information" are both worthy goals, but they're incompatiable. Personally, I think Greg's idea of separate namespaces (a neutral-and-well-written mainspace, and a separate crapspace for all the pet theories, spammers and obscure bands) is a good one if it could ever be made workable.

[Sarcasticidealist]

If the ArbCom created such a committee itself, decided its composition, and retained power over its decisions, yes, I suppose so. But if its power was derived from the community and its composition was decided by the community, no.

Well, clearly that's not possible. What if Arb Comm created it itself, decided it's initial composition, but then released it into the wild to have elections and make its own decisions? Because it seems to me that that's about the best you can hope for.

[LaraLove]

I'm to the point that I want to see change any way it can be brought. So I'm going to give this my best shot. I've put up BLP as the suggested starting topic. Shocker, I know.

I don't know everyone on the list either. Jooperscoopers is a name I haven't seen since my RFA, wherein he fabricated some reasons to oppose me then prophesied that I was, at best, the next Kelly Martin.

[Milton Roe]

(IMG:http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc358/WRCedric/imageaxd.jpg) Well . . . you know.

For those of you who missed the joke, those are deck chairs on the Titanic. Had no idea there was a photo of them. Wonderful!

[Eva Destruction]

I'm to the point that I want to see change any way it can be brought. So I'm going to give this my best shot. I've put up BLP as the suggested starting topic. Shocker, I know.

I don't know everyone on the list either. Jooperscoopers is a name I haven't seen since my RFA, wherein he fabricated some reasons to oppose me then prophesied that I was, at best, the next Kelly Martin.

I'm quite taken by your Gallant Defender's reply, though. If "you remind me of Kelly Martin" is really the worst insult he's ever heard, I pray for his sake that he never sets foot in any military or police building.

[NuclearWarfare]

For those who haven't seen it yet, there is now a RfC up on the group.

[Kelly Martin]

For those who haven't seen it yet, there is now a RfC up on the group.

The "support" list of the lead opinion in that RfC would be a good first start on a list of individuals whose continued participation in Wikipedia should be disincented.

[Somey]

Well, you can't please everyone, particularly if you're trying to actually do something useful in an environment full of people who can only be pleased by being allowed to directly participate in everything that happens.

I mean, the whole point is to get the curmudgeons and activist-types together and make suggestions, right? The only suggestion that would come from the anyone else among the WP-cult crowd would just be the usual "go away and let us do whatever the f*** we want and stop caring about who we piss off in the process" sort of thing.

The last thing you'd want to do is have the list of invitees determined by a popularity contest, because being popular on WP means not being a curmudgeon or activist. I'm not saying this is a worthwhile idea, but these people calling for the group to be "elected by the community" are probably just pissed that they themselves weren't invited in the first place.

[Eva Destruction]

The last thing you'd want to do is have the list of invitees determined by a popularity contest, because being popular on WP means not being a curmudgeon or activist. I'm not saying this is a worthwhile idea, but these people calling for the group to be "elected by the community" are probably just pissed that they themselves weren't invited in the first place.

For myself, if they'd asked me I'd have declined (and I'd be shocked if Slim, the noisiest anti at present, wasn't invited). I don't see the problem so much being the "unelected" side, as the complete confusion as to what this group is actually going to do. Nobody so far has actually said what the purpose of this group is (the current statement of purpose seems to boil down to "bitch about things but with no powers to do anything about them"); as I've already said, this looks to me like an attempt to shut Jimmy Wales's noisier critics up by giving them posts on the metaphorical payroll. As far as I'm concerned, "the community can shut down the "think tank" aspects […] but it can't prevent ArbCom from coming to the people in the group for advice without shutting down ArbCom itself" sums up the "fuck you, if you don't like this we'll just take it to IRC and do it anyway" mentality quite nicely. The problem is, any legitimate criticism coming from this group's members will be tainted by having come from a source with no legitimacy (even in Wikipedia's own dubious definition of 'consensus'), while any shitty ideas coming from it will be treated with a seriousness they don't deserve, by virtue of having come from Jimbo's private corps of Illuminati.

I did not see this coming.

[Kelly Martin]

I did not see this coming.

Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.

[Nerd]

Heh. Let's hope they all quit.

I did not see this coming.

Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.

You have got to be kidding me.

This post has been edited by Nerd:

[Sarcasticidealist]

Another one bites the dust.

Heh. Let's hope they all quit.

Just a stab in the dark, but do you have authority issues in your "real" life, by any chance?

[Nerd]

Heh. Let's hope they all quit.

Just a stab in the dark, but do you have authority issues in your "real" life, by any chance?

No.

[Cla68]

I did not see this coming.

Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.

Oh for crying out loud. Thanks SV, I hope the view is nice from the high horse you're riding on. Afraid that you're losing all hope of every asserting any control in Wikipedia again?

The thing you and everyone else needs to remember is that ArbCom is currently the only thing in Wikipedia resembling any kind of formal governance body, so if they take the initiative to try to get something going to improve Wikipedia's governance, it should be supported. This council may not have any impact since it doesn't have any formal authority, but Kirill and the others who proposed it probably intended it that way in order to try to escape any accusations of exceeding their authority. Unfortunately, however, someone elected to make such accusation anyway.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[GlassBeadGame]

Why any group would want an "advisory council"consisting of the very people who are already endlessly inserting themselves into every dispute, policy discussion, gossip or miscellaneous wonkery that they happen upon is beyond me. The whole point of an advisory council is to provide new perspectives. Look outside yourself for once, Wikipedia.

[Somey]

I don't think it's all that surprising that people who are increasingly in a damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't situation are getting fed up with being bashed on all sides (in some cases, deservedly so of course). It's not like they're getting paid...

I can also understand the view that this is just another attempt to co-opt critics and make them part of the system, but like I stated earlier, these folks aren't really "critics" in the sense of really thinking Wikipedia is utterly hopeless, or even having all that serious a problem with the way they're doing things. (Though I suppose Giano may be like that, to some extent.) And I seriously doubt they would have asked SlimVirgin to participate - you might as well just pull out the gun, aim it at your foot, and fire repeatedly.

There really are many, many people among the Faithful who consider themselves serious "internal critics" of the system, and have done for quite some time. Unfortunately, their idea of "WP criticism" usually amounts to "I've been telling you people for years that you have to ban anyone who shows the slightest bit of attitude, particularly towards me, or whatever I happen to be doing at the time." If the ArbCom is looking to propose realistic standards for treating people how they ought to be treated, well... it's like Kelly Martin says above - the list of opposers has a lot of people on it whom Wikipedia would be better off without, if it really wants to do that.

[Kelly Martin]

The whole point of an advisory council is to provide new perspectives. Look outside yourself for once, Wikipedia.

Indeed, it is traditional for an advisory council to be comprised almost entirely of outsiders. The people on this council, some of them at least, are outsiders in the sense that they're not Carriers of the Holy Blessing of the Almighty Jimbo. But they're still very much insiders of the Wiki-Experience.

Surely there are online communities with expertise they're willing to share? Oh, wait, I forget: Wikipedia is unlike anything that ever came before and cannot possibly learn anything from the experiences of these other places. My mistake.

[LessHorrid vanU]

I did not see this coming.

Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.

Oh for crying out loud. Thanks SV, I hope the view is nice from the high horse you're riding on. Afraid that you're losing all hope of every asserting any control in Wikipedia again?

The thing you and everyone else needs to remember is that ArbCom is currently the only thing in Wikipedia resembling any kind of formal governance body, so if they take the initiative to try to get something going to improve Wikipedia's governance, it should be supported. This council may not have any impact since it doesn't have any formal authority, but Kirill and the others who proposed it probably intended it that way in order to try to escape any accusations of exceeding their authority. Unfortunately, however, someone elected to make such accusation anyway.

As I said in my comment to Kirill (I was observing WP etiquette in not referring to SV by name, but I trust it was clear) the most vocal opposition is coming from an editor who used to be part of an off Wiki but sanctioned mailing list who used it to influence not only policy but the day to day operation of the projects management.

[Somey]

Surely there are online communities with expertise they're willing to share? Oh, wait, I forget: Wikipedia is unlike anything that ever came before and cannot possibly learn anything from the experiences of these other places....

Another very good point. What they really need, IMO, is an advisory group made up of people who were heavily involved in Social Web initiatives that actually failed, and figure out if some of the things WP is doing (or not doing) are similar to some of the things that caused those other sites to have problems. After all, many of the people who ran those sites have had considerable time to think about what they did wrong, or didn't do right, and it might even pain them somewhat to see others doing pretty much the same thing.

It's far more likely that WP'ers will want to consult only with people who run sites that are spectacularly successful right now, namely Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, because this will make the WP'ers feel more special and muy importante. But they won't learn much from those folks that they don't already know, since the extent of their wisdom is likely to be "come up with a popular idea and run with it."

[taiwopanfob]

Matisse bitterly complains that Kirill is acting in bad faith by proposing the idea, serving on the council, voting for it, etc, and then basically gives a hearty cheer when Kirill says "fuck it":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=301595962

Curiously, he then goes to Kirill, post-resignation, demanding he be protected from that evil Giano guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=301602079

... even though Kirill was a participant in the discussion, and thus he could not do anything lest he violate the same sort of COI stuff Matisse was complaining about! Beyond stupid.

Kirill should scribble Matisse's name onto the "Acting ArbCom Member" list as a passing swipe at this entire spectacle. It's clear ArbCom needs the sort of thought processes only Matisse can bring to that table!

[Kelly Martin]

Curiously, he then goes to Kirill, post-resignation, demanding he be protected from that evil Giano guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=301602079

... even though Kirill was a participant in the discussion, and thus he could not do anything lest he violate the same sort of COI stuff Matisse was complaining about!

Yeah, I saw that. Shit like that should lead to an immediate ban, but Wikipedia not only does not discourage, but in fact rewards such tomfuckery.

[thekohser]

Until Wikipedia's usefulness can be replaced by a comparable site, it will continue to dominate...

Umm... you do realize, don't you, that Google gets seven times the page views of Wikipedia, and reaches nearly four times more people?

[Nerd]

Until Wikipedia's usefulness can be replaced by a comparable site, it will continue to dominate...

Umm... you do realize, don't you, that Google gets seven times the page views of Wikipedia, and reaches nearly four times more people?

Google is a comparable site to Wikipedia?

[LaraLove]

I'm to the point that I want to see change any way it can be brought. So I'm going to give this my best shot. I've put up BLP as the suggested starting topic. Shocker, I know.

I don't know everyone on the list either. Jooperscoopers is a name I haven't seen since my RFA, wherein he fabricated some reasons to oppose me then prophesied that I was, at best, the next Kelly Martin.

I'm quite taken by your Gallant Defender's reply, though. If "you remind me of Kelly Martin" is really the worst insult he's ever heard, I pray for his sake that he never sets foot in any military or police building.

WaltonOne is my gallant defender? And where did he or anyone else say it was "the worst insult" they'd "ever heard".

Ugh. Bitch and complain. That's all people ever do on this project is bitch and complain. If people would just stfu and take a seat once in a while, things would work much better. But it's not possible. It is literally impossible to change a damn thing on this sinking project.

I read the email and accepted the invite in less than 14 minutes. Why? Because I thought this one was set. I really, really should have expected the community to rise up with their pitchforks as they always do, but I suppose I was in a particularly good mood that night and totally overlooked the obvious.

How is it so hard to grasp "thinktank"? I really don't get it. I'm so over this project's bullshit. If it weren't for the BLP problem, I wouldn't have even gone back. Why do I even bother... I'm tossing water off a sinking ship with a tea cup, and there's no rescue in sight. The life rafts are being deflated. Maybe it's time to just give up.

[everyking]

Heh. Let's hope they all quit.

I did not see this coming.

Protest resignation? Kirill was one of the few sensible people left on the committee.

You have got to be kidding me.

Glad to see them go. How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?

[Kelly Martin]

How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?

The Wikipedia community will never elect a "serious reforms committee" because the Wikipedia community does not want reform. How many times do we have to tell you this before before you grasp it?


Looking back at the events so far, I'd say that the main mistake the ArbCom made was in announcing the Advisory Council. They should simply have established the council without announcing it, then let it do its work. Announcing it merely invited the community to throw spears at it.