Remaking arbcom, sharing more random thoughts Options

[SB_Johnny]

Splitting firewood today (my autumn craigslist moneymaker), and thinking about some of what I've learned about arbcom recently.

Arbcom (or something like it) might work a lot better is it was both more diffuse and more powerful.

Just numbers for the moment:

Compose it of 101 members. Members are the 101 with the best ratio of support/oppose, somehow mathematically selected by sheer number of votes (arbitrary minimum number, or something more complicated)

New cases, block reviews, etc. need 11 members willing to look into the thing and make a report, then the voting on options is open to all members.

Losing the rest of the thought while typing now... off to do another cord or two. The point is to have enough people available to handle the workload, while also being well above the number of true "drama bugs", and making it a much lower stress position (not to mention less time consuming).

[Eva Destruction]

Splitting firewood today (my autumn craigslist moneymaker), and thinking about some of what I've learned about arbcom recently.

Arbcom (or something like it) might work a lot better is it was both more diffuse and more powerful.

Just numbers for the moment:

Compose it of 101 members. Members are the 101 with the best ratio of support/oppose, somehow mathematically selected by sheer number of votes (arbitrary minimum number, or something more complicated)

New cases, block reviews, etc. need 11 members willing to look into the thing and make a report, then the voting on options is open to all members.

Losing the rest of the thought while typing now... off to do another cord or two. The point is to have enough people available to handle the workload, while also being well above the number of true "drama bugs", and making it a much lower stress position (not to mention less time consuming).

How would you measure "the best ratio of support/oppose"? Anyone could jack their stats up to an impressive level in any voting system (not just in a Wikipedia context) by only backing obvious winners and opposing obvious losers. Dispute resolution - in any context, not just in wikipedia - is about dealing with those gray areas where "consensus" isn't obvious and show-of-hands voting breaks down.

[dogbiscuit]

Splitting firewood today (my autumn craigslist moneymaker), and thinking about some of what I've learned about arbcom recently.

Arbcom (or something like it) might work a lot better is it was both more diffuse and more powerful.

Just numbers for the moment:

Compose it of 101 members. Members are the 101 with the best ratio of support/oppose, somehow mathematically selected by sheer number of votes (arbitrary minimum number, or something more complicated)

New cases, block reviews, etc. need 11 members willing to look into the thing and make a report, then the voting on options is open to all members.

Losing the rest of the thought while typing now... off to do another cord or two. The point is to have enough people available to handle the workload, while also being well above the number of true "drama bugs", and making it a much lower stress position (not to mention less time consuming).

How would you measure "the best ratio of support/oppose"? Anyone could jack their stats up to an impressive level in any voting system (not just in a Wikipedia context) by only backing obvious winners and opposing obvious losers. Dispute resolution - in any context, not just in wikipedia - is about dealing with those gray areas where "consensus" isn't obvious and show-of-hands voting breaks down.

The fundamental problem seems to be that if the selection process is composed of, erm, motivated members, aka the current active electorate, then the electoral process is probably already fundamentally flawed.

I don't have a solution to that, it simply isn't clear to me how you get a sane governance when the active membership seems to be so skewed away from the kind of characters required. The likes of Guy, Durova, SlimVirgin etc. would be actively disruptive to any governance system that didn't pay homage to their status on the project - which is the real problem, for all the "edits not the editor" justice is different for those who are deemed to have made a contribution to the project. That might be mitigation of punishment (but even the contributions are seen to be suspect when you see the disruption some "valued" members cause) but past cases have showed that it is well neigh impossible for those who are not part of the in-crowd to get a fair hearing - usually because they have been demonised before they get that far.

However, the fundamental problem is not ArbCom, but an organisational culture that values gamesmanship over boring work. I suspect that if you could shake up the culture, which would mean WMF taking it by the throat, ignoring pissing off editors who didn't want to play by the new rules, and impose a different way of working. The fact that they cannot understand that flagged revisions is fundamental not only to getting control of vandalism and defamation wars, but as a means to organising versions that are fit for purpose. It is hard to be fit for purpose without an idea of what the purpose is.

[GlassBeadGame]

Let's have everyone on ArbCom. Let all investigate all. Let's have rules and procedures made of shifting wiki sand. Let people write briefs against their enemies while their heads are still stuck in the pillory. Ten thousand tyrants equals democracy.

[Moulton]

In other words, it's hopeless. Wikipedia is too far gone to be redeemed into an authentic and reputable encyclopedia with an ethical governance system. But it's still one of the most durable MMPORGs on the teh intarwebs.

[Guido den Broeder]

The entire idea of having an arbitration committee should be abandoned, at least until there is instated a procedure to get it composed of competent people.

Currently it is nothing more than the top layer of the defamation machine.

[A Horse With No Name]

A solution that will not happen but will work: get rid of Arbcom and bring in professional editors (paid by WMF) who would provide impartial and unbiased oversight.

The Law/TU fiasco clearly shows that Arbcom (with the sole exception of Brad) lacks the intelligence to provide any degree of fair leadership and management. The closing statement by Risker in this case -- her self-congratulatory "we handled this in 24 hours" without acknowledging that at least two arbitrators had knowledge of this weeks in advance and that half of Arbcom refused to answer whether they knew, too -- was the sour cherry on this rancid cake.

At this stage of WP's development, it is time to stop playing games with fools and to bring in paid professionals who don't carry excess Wiki-baggage.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Sat 10th October 2009, 6:52pm

[GlassBeadGame]

A solution that will not happen but will work: get rid of Arbcom and bring in professional editors (paid by WMF) who would provide impartial and unbiased oversight.

Good proposal. Or some combination of people with subject matter and dispute resolution skills.

[CharlotteWebb]

A solution that will not happen but will work: get rid of Arbcom and bring in professional editors (paid by WMF) who would provide impartial and unbiased oversight.

I'm sure being in Jimbo's back pocket will work really well when they're asked to arbitrate disputes about [[List of founders of Wikipedia]], [[Tax-status of the Wikimedia Foundation]], etc.

Of course one could argue that this is already the case, that the WMF already has the entire arbcom by the short and curlies and feels no real need to pay for additional influence.

[Guido den Broeder]

Jimbo might want to sell the foundation to Google or Microsoft, before all value is lost.

[GlassBeadGame]

Jimbo might want to sell the foundation to Google or Microsoft, before all value is lost.

You understand when you give something away to a non-profit that you don't own it anymore, right?

[Guido den Broeder]

There are ways around that.

Also, some provision will have been made for the case that the foundation is dissolved.

[GlassBeadGame]

There are ways around that.

Also, some provision will have been made for the case that the foundation is dissolved.

No there isn't. Not when you have this level of visibility. When a non-profit dissolves the assets must be conveyed to another charitable purpose.

[Guido den Broeder]

Typically, there will be an article in the statutes dealing with the eventuality.

[GlassBeadGame]

Typically, there will be an article in the statutes dealing with the eventuality.

WMF is a 501( c ) ( 3 ), without looking I can assure you that it has a provision in it's bylaws or articles of incorporation as described.

The one "way around" might be to fork the wiki and use the free license to appropriate the content. I would imagine that this would work better for almost anyone other than Mr. Wales as the level of self dealing and exploitation that this would involve would result in a real shit storm.

[Kelly Martin]

Currently it is nothing more than the top layer of the defamation machine.

No, the top layer of the defamation machine appears to be Mike Godwin. At least if there's any truth to the rumor that he's running around calling various people "insane" just because they don't think Jimmy Wales is the best thing since sliced cheese.

Of course, it takes something special to get defamed by Godwin. Most people have to settle for being defamed by some anonymous Wikipedian.

You understand when you give something away to a non-profit that you don't own it anymore, right?

Jimbo's never accepted this; why should anyone else?

Typically, there will be an article in the statutes dealing with the eventuality.

The IRS requires, as a condition of 501©(3) status, that a non-profit organization have provisions that ensure that, in the event of its dissolution, its assets will be conveyed only to other 501©(3) organization or to the government (federal, state, tribal, or local). In the absence of any other provision, the residual assets of a non-profit will typically escheat to the general treasury of the state of incorporation, to be used to the common benefit of the people thereof.

[EricBarbour]

No, the top layer of the defamation machine appears to be Mike Godwin. At least if there's any truth to the rumor that he's running around calling various people "insane" just because they don't think Jimmy Wales is the best thing since sliced cheese.

Sadly, I can accept this rumor as fact. Mr. Godwin does not impress me. He did good
work at the EFF, but since becoming a Jimbo-ninjo, he's lost his spine.

Where did you hear it, if I might be so bold?

[Kelly Martin]

Sadly, I can accept this rumor as fact. Mr. Godwin does not impress me. He did good work at the EFF, but since becoming a Jimbo-ninjo, he's lost his spine.

Where did you hear it, if I might be so bold?

A forwarded email, the parties of which I shall not reveal.

Also, I'd challenge that he did "good work" at the EFF. Rather, others did good work, for which he took credit, and when he did take a direct hand he tended to foul things up as much as not. (Sound like anyone else we know?) As with Larry Lessig, Mike Godwin's reputation appears to be incommensurate with his actual accomplishments.

[CharlotteWebb]

Rather, others did good work, for which he took credit, and when he did take a direct hand he tended to foul things up as much as not.

Sounds like he took an Eloquent approach...

[A Horse With No Name]

A solution that will not happen but will work: get rid of Arbcom and bring in professional editors (paid by WMF) who would provide impartial and unbiased oversight.

I'm sure being in Jimbo's back pocket will work really well when they're asked to arbitrate disputes about [[List of founders of Wikipedia]], [[Tax-status of the Wikimedia Foundation]], etc.

Of course one could argue that this is already the case, that the WMF already has the entire arbcom by the short and curlies and feels no real need to pay for additional influence.

Eventually, they are going to pay for declining participation in the site, significant quality control problems and increasing bad publicity.

If you leave WP today and come back in 10 years, it will be populated solely by the obnoxious OCD types and the insecure teenagers. Anyone who approaches WP with the slightest notion of participating in a serious academic project will either have their accounts disabled by the resident nasties or will walk away in disgust.

As it stands, the quality of writing is -- on the whole -- mediocre, with significant gaps in coverage in a wide variety of areas. Any attempt to get Wikipedia accepted as an academic reference source has been rejected by serious scholars -- instead, the site has become a punchline with comics and inevitably gets highlighted for vandalism whenever some controversial figure does something silly.

If WP is going to move forward and regain cred, it needs to get rid of all admins and bring in professional managers who can function in a neutral, non-partisan manner. Those who are dedicated to writing (not building) an encyclopedia will be able to flourish because they are dealing with serious professionals and not stupid teenagers or inane adults who have no qualification to manage anything. Those who are on WP for the drama will have no reason to be there and will vanish, leaving it to those who want to make a real difference.

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Sun 11th October 2009, 2:15am