Fundamental reform of Wikipedia, ideas wanted Options

[The Wales Hunter]

Why would anyone listen to what this vile monster has to say about "reform?"

Because if the Devil told you your zipper was undone, you'd still check?

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter: Sat 12th September 2009, 9:02pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Why would anyone listen to what this vile monster has to say about "reform?"

Because if the Devil told you your zipper was undone, you'd still check?

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

[John Limey]

Why would anyone listen to what this vile monster has to say about "reform?"

Because if the Devil told you your zipper was undone, you'd still check?

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

Manipulate? There's nothing here to manipulate. It's not like at the end of this we're all going to come to an agreement on the three best changes and then it'll be implemented.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Why would anyone listen to what this vile monster has to say about "reform?"

Because if the Devil told you your zipper was undone, you'd still check?

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

Everyone else took the view that the requirement was the implementing of reform to the existing structure - rather than tearing that down and starting from scratch. I saw PD's starter as "How do you change the existing editorship into making a better encyclopedia", as I suppose did most people.

[everyking]

Wikipedia = fake, false, unreliable, unaccountable.

Book = Real, reliable, true, accountable.

You haven't read many books, have you?

[gomi]

Most of these have been alluded to already, but here goes:


1. Admins, bureaucrats, and all other potentates serve fixed terms, are known by real-name, and are forbidden to edit articles of any kind during their term as admins;

2. No article revision is presented for public view without a number of appropriately credentialed, real-named reviewers willing to stake their reputations on its veracity and accept legal responsibility for its publishing;

3. All other non-controversial articles carry a giant disclaimer regarding their low likelihood of accuracy and/or high likelihood of bias; except that current-events articles and most BLPs are either forbidden entirely, or banished to some non-Googled, non-public backwater until they can pass test #2.

4. Bonus fourth item -- ban the participation of minors, except possibly as pseudonymous editors in controlled "kiddie" areas such as Pokemon and video games.

This would solve 99% of Wikipedia's problems while still allowing "anyone" to edit. The first would disenfranchise the permanent admin class and strip them of the power to manipulate the text, ridding us of the likes of JayJg, SlimVirgin, and other POV warrior admins. The second would stem the woeful tide of misinformation WP foists upon the world, and introduce readers to the notion of scholarly review. The third would stem the damage done by slanderers and partisans, making WP articles much less attractive targets for everything from simple vandalism to complex astroturfing. In this environment, sockpuppetry, banned users, and all that other fal-di-rah would vanish as a concern, there would be little value in accruing MMPORG points, and the whole "social" cabal aspect of Wikipedia would either dissolve or at least lose much of its pernicious nature.

Any other questions?

blah, blah, blah

Why would anyone listen to what this vile monster has to say about "reform?"

They're not bad proposals. SlimVirgin suggests them here either as disinformation or simply to curry favor -- she knows there is absolutely zero chance of their enactment. I would be more sympathetic if she were to actively campaign for #3 on-wiki.

[GlassBeadGame]

Why would anyone listen to what this vile monster has to say about "reform?"

Because if the Devil told you your zipper was undone, you'd still check?

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

Manipulate? There's nothing here to manipulate. It's not like at the end of this we're all going to come to an agreement on the three best changes and then it'll be implemented.

Manipulate as in regain threshold credibility needed to engage in discussion here and on WP to advance her own ends which have nothing to do with anything she says here. But you fools will talk to anyone for the joy of hearing your own voices. Same with FT2 or O'Keeffe.

I think Wikipedia just needs some new slipcovers, maybe something green.

[victim of censorship]

Wikipedia = fake, false, unreliable, unaccountable.

Book = Real, reliable, true, accountable.

You haven't read many books, have you?

Have you Mr. Holden Caulfield ???

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Sat 12th September 2009, 11:33pm

[anthony]

Wales gives you complete charge, and you have three fundamental reforms that you are allowed to implement.

What would those be? And what are the problems or abuses that each are supposed to address?

I'm not sure what the first two would be, but the third would be to give myself three more fundamental reforms that I'm allowed to implement.

Seriously, it's hard to imagine such a situation, since Wales doesn't have complete charge in the first place, to be able to give it to me.

1) Abandon a risk management policy based on immunity and accept board level responsibility for editorial policies and practices (this will result in a through reform of BLP issues, among others issues, in a manner that will not be undone at the whim of the next person with "three wishes.")

Good one. I'm not sure I'd give up immunity, but I'd definitely abandon the policy of non-intervention which supposedly is in place to preserve immunity. Put down "fire Mike Godwin" as the first step of this first step.

I'll adopt that as my step one.

Still not sure about step two. Something about removing all the anti-commercial sentiment from the projects.

And my step three remains as wishing for three more wishes.

[Emperor]

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

Your set certainly has more buzzwords. Way to go.

[GlassBeadGame]

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

Your set certainly has more buzzwords. Way to go.

..that from a guy who runs a junior high pep club.

[Law]

I would rid all Bio's dead and alive from WP. The site is simply not responsible to handle them.

I would make all admins accountable for De-Rfa processes.

I would kill the mailing lists. I would disable the email function.

I would get rid of CIV and NPA and let adults work shit out like adults.

Come to think of it, I think of WP like I do the Internal Revenue Code. I would take the site down, and completely rebuild every facet of it. In short, the more I think of it, the more I consider WP to be a car that is totaled by an insurance company. Sure it could theoretically be rebuilt, but sometimes the cost is too great. Just let it rot and get another one.

[Peter Damian]

Come to think of it, I think of WP like I do the Internal Revenue Code. I would take the site down, and completely rebuild every facet of it. In short, the more I think of it, the more I consider WP to be a car that is totaled by an insurance company. Sure it could theoretically be rebuilt, but sometimes the cost is too great. Just let it rot and get another one.

This would be the 'totally destroy Wikipedia' option, then, Law?

[Nerd]

I would rid all Bio's dead and alive from WP. The site is simply not responsible to handle them.

Even ones like Henry VIII, Abraham Lincoln, Isaac Newton etc who are all clearly notable? Omitting them would make a meaningless gap.

[John Limey]

I would rid all Bio's dead and alive from WP. The site is simply not responsible to handle them.

Even ones like Henry VIII, Abraham Lincoln, Isaac Newton etc who are all clearly notable? Omitting them would make a meaningless gap.

Indeed, surely nothing can claim to be even a vaguely comprehensive encyclopedia without such biographies. Even among BLPs, some are unquestionably essential as well: Queen Elizabeth II, Bill Clinton, Michael Jordan, and Stephen Hawking leap to mind. I would further point out that at the moment biographies make up around 1/3 of all WP articles, so deleting the lot would shrink Wikipedia considerably (you can decide for yourself whether that is good or bad).

[anthony]

Come to think of it, I think of WP like I do the Internal Revenue Code. I would take the site down, and completely rebuild every facet of it. In short, the more I think of it, the more I consider WP to be a car that is totaled by an insurance company. Sure it could theoretically be rebuilt, but sometimes the cost is too great. Just let it rot and get another one.

This would be the 'totally destroy Wikipedia' option, then, Law?

Especially with the comparison to the Internal Revenue Code, I'm not sure what the "completely rebuild" and "get another one" parts are about.

[KD Tries Again]

Splitting the admin function from the editorial function is a great idea, but it will surely only lead to more socks and IP edits.

[CharlotteWebb]

Splitting the admin function from the editorial function is a great idea, but it will surely only lead to more socks and IP edits.

Well, it would decrease the number of ways arbcom can punish you for making edits they don't like.

I would kill the mailing lists. I would disable the email function.

[A Horse With No Name]

Wales gives you complete charge, and you have three fundamental reforms that you are allowed to implement.

What would those be? And what are the problems or abuses that each are supposed to address?

Sell the damn thing to Rupert Murdoch and retire to Bimini.

If that is not possible, Plan B:

1. Require paid registration -- no IP editing, you need an account. Registration would be renewed annually.

2. Eliminate RfA and RfB and put in a standardized exam, not unlike a civil service exam, where people are judged based on understanding of policy and guidelines and not on irrelevant stuff. The exam would be reviewed by an impartial panel who would only know the applicant by a code number, thus avoiding personality clashes.

3. All new articles would be subject to review prior to going online.

4. All new edits would reviewed on a set cycle -- hourly, twice or thrice or day, whatever. No new editing would be automatic.

5. Eliminate editor Talk Pages. All conversation relating to articles and contents will be on the Talk Page related to the article or to the WikiProject(s) connected to the article.

6. Eliminate AN and AN/I as it exists -- anyone with a complaint or concern would send an e-mail to an admin forum, where the first free admin would review the cases as they come in.

7. Rewrite blocking policy so offenses and matching punishment are clearly spelled out and are not subject to admin whims.

8. Get rid of that damn ugly jigsaw globe logo and get something sexier.

[CharlotteWebb]

2. Eliminate RfA and RfB and put in a standardized exam, not unlike a civil service exam, where people are judged based on understanding of policy and guidelines and not on irrelevant stuff.

That would be meaningful if there were some correlation between understanding policy and actually following it...