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).

[Kelly Martin]

What I find really interesting in reading the comments on the RfC and its talk page is that Wikipedians in general appear to be remarkably stupid people. Does nobody in this entire pit of despair understand the utility of a discussion group or an exploratory committee? It's quite common for bodies corporates to establish a committee and charge it to "investigate options and report". Such a committee has no "authority" to do anything, and yet such committees are both commonplace and essential.

I assume that the main reason for this is that the Wikipedia community, or at least that section of it that participates in "community discussions", is overwhelmingly stocked with teenagers who have no experience with anything other than being bossed around by their parents and their teachers, and have no concept of someone having authority arising from any source other than fiat.

Oh, and in addendum I see that Slimmy is going after Flonight now. Two snakes going at it, that should be good for some lulz.

[One]

What I find really interesting in reading the comments on the RfC and its talk page is that Wikipedians in general appear to be remarkably stupid people. Does nobody in this entire pit of despair understand the utility of a discussion group or an exploratory committee? It's quite common for bodies corporates to establish a committee and charge it to "investigate options and report". Such a committee has no "authority" to do anything, and yet such committees are both commonplace and essential.

Well said.

Y'know, the main reason I voted in favor of this proposal was so that we could get a group of diverse folks to be repeat players for discussing policy issues. If such a group could make some well-supported recommendations, it seemed like there's a good chance that the community could bear it under an inclusive referendum.

There are two problems with "consensus" on Wikipedia. The first is that a small number of individuals can derail any discussion for any reason. The second is the super-majorities required to pass anything. We can do nothing about the second problem, but I think a committee could get a productive agenda-driven dialog going.

[A Horse With No Name]

Y'know, the main reason I voted in favor of this proposal was so that we could get a group of diverse folks to be repeat players for discussing policy issues. If such a group could make some well-supported recommendations, it seemed like there's a good chance that the community could bear it under an inclusive referendum.

Yeah, but the only person you chose with a brain and a body was LaraLove. Nothing wrong with that choice, no siree. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif)

But the other choices -- Fuchs? Giano? DGG? JoopersCoopers? (Jooper who?) MBisanz? That's not diverse, that's dreary. Ridiculous. Uninspired. Zzzzz. Compared to those guys, Xeno is Mr. Excitement.

There are plenty of fun guys you could have packed into the council: Roux, ThuranX, Baseball Bugs, Neurolysis, Shappy, Ottava, Stifle, Thumperward (provided he isn't sober, of course) and that loveable lummox Tanthalas39. Hell, imagine what Wikipedia would look like if that gang got their hands on the keys!

You messed up, One. You had your chance and you Shankboned us. Ouch! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Cla68]

Rootology just asked SV to come clean about all of her secret communications in the past. SV declines to address that request.

Anyway, I think the heat and drama are starting to die down now, in spite of SV's best efforts at keeping it all going. The council members are able and willing to try to make it work. The ArbCom appears to want to continue to give it a try. Hopefully, some of the other editors, such as Everyking and Roux, who presented alternate ideas in the RfC will have some success with their efforts to promote their ideas.

[Kelly Martin]

Anyway, I think the heat and drama are starting to die down now, in spite of SV's best efforts at keeping it all going.

The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

SlimVirgin's motivations are obvious here: she has agendas to forward, and effective governance working toward a goal of writing an unbiased encyclopedia is almost certainly going to interfere with that. What amazes me is that, given all the evidence of this, nobody in Wikipedia's ostensible leadership has been willing to admit that this is the case and tell her where to stuff it. I suppose because they're all afraid that she'll rally her support base to manufacture a false consensus in her favor, just as she has so many times before. You'd think that people aware of this problem would realize the folly of consensus-based governance... and yet they don't.

I dunno. Wikipedians are amazing creatures, aren't they?

[Sarcasticidealist]

The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.

I dunno. Wikipedians are amazing creatures, aren't they?

We are. I have to say, though, I've noticed you taking rather a less detached tone to all of this than I'm accustomed to seeing from you -- almost as if you still had a little of the amazing creature in you yourself...

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[Orderinchaos]

The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.

I really don't either - I neither have "power" nor want it, I think a revolution might well be a good thing as long as the right ideas are behind it (i.e. it doesn't end up with paid advertising all over it or something), and I'm neither an anarchist nor a fan of slack governance (I worked in the public sector for a while and probably will for much of my future career). As for friends - one fellow pleb agrees with me on most of it but not on my intended solution, and two others are amongst its strongest supporters. It'd be really difficult to put my opposition into a convenient box.

[A Horse With No Name]

I really don't either - I neither have "power" nor want it, I think a revolution might well be a good thing as long as the right ideas are behind it (i.e. it doesn't end up with paid advertising all over it or something), and I'm neither an anarchist nor a fan of slack governance (I worked in the public sector for a while and probably will for much of my future career). As for friends - one fellow pleb agrees with me on most of it but not on my intended solution, and two others are amongst its strongest supporters. It'd be really difficult to put my opposition into a convenient box.

If I knew that you were going to be so wishy-washy, I would've brought my laundry and a box of soap flakes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Orderinchaos]

I really don't either - I neither have "power" nor want it, I think a revolution might well be a good thing as long as the right ideas are behind it (i.e. it doesn't end up with paid advertising all over it or something), and I'm neither an anarchist nor a fan of slack governance (I worked in the public sector for a while and probably will for much of my future career). As for friends - one fellow pleb agrees with me on most of it but not on my intended solution, and two others are amongst its strongest supporters. It'd be really difficult to put my opposition into a convenient box.

If I knew that you were going to be so wishy-washy, I would've brought my laundry and a box of soap flakes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

LOL... I'm not wishy washy on my opposition to this proposal though. I must admit though I do find your commentary on me suitably witty and amusing (e.g. the "blunder from down under" line a number of weeks ago). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I simply am of the view that if you put Wikipoliticians in charge of governance, you won't get governance, you'll get Wikipolitics. A heap of proposals that ignore the real issues but meet irrelevant priorities which are the focus of the "in groups" being invited to participate.

My proposal is : bring in experts (as in real ones from the field, not ones with some amusing screen name and a "I once worked in management but I can't say where and I can pontificate in impressive verbiage" credential) and see what they propose. If it's good enough for the world's largest companies to not trust their own and seek (or employ) expert advice, it's good enough for a large website, especially if it's trying to gain credibility in the wider domain. If money or domain is an issue (i.e. WMF won't pay for something purely en.wikipedia) then do a donation drive and those who care can raise the money to pay these experts to come in. Most people in professional and academic disciplines (rightly) see Wikipedia as some sort of bizarre experiment with less than rigorous processes to ensure legal and ethical responsibility (and rather scant compliance in so many areas), and it's pretty hard to argue them where they stand when they can point to so many examples.

Unfortunately I think that some of the people I find agreeing with that this proposal is bad would find my proposal even more frightening. However consider this - some people are saying (loudly) that they want this Advisory Council to be elected from the membership. When a Canadian or British election falls below 65% participation the pundits declare it a disaster. But what percentage participate in Wiki elections - is it even 1%? Is that 1%, going through the names, even remotely representative as a sample of those who either edit Wikipedia, rely on it or are affected by it (eg BLPs)? Does the electoral process have any credibility when Jimbo can change the rules after the election and pick who he wants? And how would the process that selected our present ArbCom, select an advisory council that could actually do its job?

This post has been edited by Orderinchaos:

[Cla68]

LOL... I'm not wishy washy on my opposition to this proposal though. I must admit though I do find your commentary on me suitably witty and amusing (e.g. the "blunder from down under" line a number of weeks ago). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

By the way, excellent work on this essay.

[A Horse With No Name]

By the way, excellent work on this essay.

Does anyone outside of WP actually read that? I always thought of Signpost as being like scribbling that you find on a bathroom wall -- something you look at when you really aren't on a mission for in-depth reading. But it is not as interesting as the bathroom stuff, of course.