Mailing list post by Kelly Martin, +5 Insightful, just FYI Options

[grm_wnr]

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien...rch/040960.html

I very much like it. Though I guess at least some people here will find something wrong with it, I still think it is Relevant To Your Interests.

[guy]

Where will anyone find "a proper deliberative body" on Wikipedia?

{{Embarrassing; apart from the staff, the only users who have made more posts than I have are blissyu2 and Race Goat. I must get a life outside the Review.}}

[nobs]

Kelly Martin said,

"I think it's time we reconsider whether "consensus" is a valid
principle of governance in as large and contentious a community as
this one has become, and whether we need to make more of an effort to
move to parliamentarianism as a method of governance."

"The angels of God rejoice over one sinner that repenteth", Lk 7:7,10.


I don't really know Kelly Martin, but let me insert for the record:

Kelly Martin was the only ArbCom member, other than Fred Bauder, that I had any interaction with, and it was limited to one posting.

In response to this Motion:

"I motion the proposals that reference nobs specifically at Proposed final decision be suspended as premature as the process is still in the Evidence phase."

Kelly Martin responded,

"Do not merely object to their presence as being "out of process", as that smacks of [[Wikipedia:wikilawyering|wikilawyering]], which we tend not to like very much.

I will assume good faith with Kelly Martin now; though nothing will ever convince me she was remotely familiar with the issues and/or evidence in my Arbitration Case, and only rubber stamped Fred Bauder's findings. Wikipedia has indeed become a large and contentious a community, and parochial prejudices that governed Wikipedia's old time users are in dire need of a reality check.

[blissyu2]

She is suggesting getting rid of consensus.

But she threw in the "I'm not quite crazy enough to sign Karmafist's manifesto" as a deliberate personal attack on a fellow administrator.

There's nothing holy in her post at all. Its just an underhanded attack with political implications.

[Golbez]

She is suggesting getting rid of consensus.

But she threw in the "I'm not quite crazy enough to sign Karmafist's manifesto" as a deliberate personal attack on a fellow administrator.

There's nothing holy in her post at all. Its just an underhanded attack with political implications.

The English Wikipedia now has a population somewhere around the level of San Diego, California. Direct democracy tends not to work at such sizes, at least a refinement of what consensus means is in order, perhaps more.

[blissyu2]

Getting rid of consensus in favour of majority is a good idea. It wasn't working anyway.

But her comments about Karmafist devalue her post.

[Cynical]

Could I point out that consensus wouldn't be in trouble if the likes of Kelly Martin actually listened to it?

[God of War]

The English Wikipedia now has a population somewhere around the level of San Diego, California. Direct democracy tends not to work at such sizes, at least a refinement of what consensus means is in order, perhaps more.

No, it doesn't. Just because the millonth user has been created doesn't mean that there are actually 1 million users. If you look at the user creation logs there is a steady stream of user name blocks from people trying to create fake names with cryllic characters and such. Add to that all the sockpuppets and people that create an account once and forget about it then you can start pushing 1 million. The number of users that regularly contribute is far lower. At least a few orders of magnitude lower.

[God of War]

That's actually true. There are many accounts that are created and never used again. By the way, Wikimedia has a statistic called "active users". An "active user" is an account in which the save button has been hit at least five times in a certain month.

Yes, according to http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm there were 16,949 active wikipedians for December of 2005 so by now that could be up to 20,000 or so. Still, no where near 1 million.

[guy]

Yes, according to http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm there were 16,949 active wikipedians for December of 2005 so by now that could be up to 20,000 or so. Still, no where near 1 million.

Is it really just five times in a month? That's scarcely very active.

[Golbez]

No, it doesn't. Just because the millonth user has been created doesn't mean that there are actually 1 million users. If you look at the user creation logs there is a steady stream of user name blocks from people trying to create fake names with cryllic characters and such. Add to that all the sockpuppets and people that create an account once and forget about it then you can start pushing 1 million. The number of users that regularly contribute is far lower. At least a few orders of magnitude lower.

Except I was also including the thousands and thousands of anonymous IPs that edit, while consciously lowering the number of registered users. Consider them undocumented aliens. (Which just fits the San Diego analogy better )

[God of War]

Except I was also including the thousands and thousands of anonymous IPs that edit, while consciously lowering the number of registered users. Consider them undocumented aliens. (Which just fits the San Diego analogy better )

Anonymous users don't really get involved in voting or wiki-politics.

[Golbez]

Anonymous users don't really get involved in voting or wiki-politics.

Nor do illegal aliens, or for that matter, most residents of any jurisdiction.