Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[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: Sat 11th July 2009, 10:39pm

[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: Sat 11th July 2009, 11:28pm

[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.