Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[Cedric]

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.

[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.

[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? 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: Sat 11th July 2009, 1:45pm

[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...

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]

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.