The main issue of this election, (for me) Options

[Peter Damian]

The main issue for me is which of the following two positions a candidate takes:

1. Wikipedia is an experiment in social democracy in which all content contributors must be treated in exactly the same way. No one is 'above the law' of civility.

2. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. That comes first. For that reason, not all content contributors are equal.

I have put this bluntly in order to emphasise the contrast. Obviously those who support (1) will argue that strict enforcement of civility is the only way to build an encyclopedia. Those who support (2) claim that good content contributors are rarely uncivil, and that (1) is being used as a stick, and so on. It really comes down to whether when it comes to choosing, one chooses civility over content (1), or content over civility (2).

For (1). Rlevse - ScienceApologist has gone so far as to accuse him of wanting "to create a particular kind of community rather than create a good encyclopedia". Giano has taken particular issue with his appointing Aervanath on a recent RFA, despite the user having little experience of content contribution. And Coren, who takes a particularly hard line when it comes to civility.

For (2). Jehochman, who gave some excellent answers to my questions, and Sir Fozzie (likewise). Also Casliber, Fish and Karate, and (to some extent) Wizardman spring to mind

Agree/disagree? Which of the other candidates falls into which camp?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 17th November 2008, 11:39am

[Kato]

Agree/disagree? Which of the other candidates falls into which camp?

The whole thing is absurd.

What matters is the CONTENT and how Wikipedia, and "Wikipedians", are dealing with that CONTENT.

The interpersonal stuff - all the bannings and blocks and scraps and hypocrisy - can be an interesting sideshow and can act as a Soap Opera worth watching on occasion, but it is the product of the "dysfunctional social network" and has little to do with the stuff kids bring up on their google searches.

That's why some of Lar's questions were interesting to me. Because they addressed BLP issues, Flagged revisions, and hinted of WPs inevitable failure of "reaching a consensus" to move forward with these serious problems. Another crucial question asked whether people supported editor unaccountability / anonymity, and why? Lar's questions can be used as a survey to ascertain whether long term Wikipedos had learned anything over the past 3 years or so, and whether they are prepared to change, move forward, or at least set an example?

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens,and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.

[Peter Damian]

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens,and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.

Agree the rest, but why are the elections getting in the way? Given that Arbcom is turning into a de facto governing body for Wikipedia, why should elections to that body be a 'farcical irrelevant nonsense'?

[Kato]

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens,and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.

Agree the rest, but why are the elections getting in the way? Given that Arbcom is turning into a de facto governing body for Wikipedia, why should elections to that body be a 'farcical irrelevant nonsense'?

See:

1. Ten Reasons Why The Arbitration Committee Doesn’t Matter
2. No matter who is elected, or who could be elected, the impact of the Arbitration committee will always be the same.

These elections serve merely as dramatic acts for the Soap Opera addicts. The Committee itself (mis)handles a small number of tedious feuds a year, and spends the rest of its time acting as a lightening rod for disgruntled Wikipedos. As Moulton preaches, and as I have learned myself watching these things, in these environments the focus of all drama ascends to the top. It wouldn't make any difference if a consortium including Nelson Mandela, Judge Judy and King Solomon served on the Committee. The lunatic drama engine that is Wikipedia can not be stopped.

[Peter Damian]

See:

1. Ten Reasons Why The Arbitration Committee Doesn’t Matter
2. No matter who is elected, or who could be elected, the impact of the Arbitration committee will always be the same.

These elections serve merely as dramatic acts for the Soap Opera addicts. The Committee itself (mis)handles a small number of tedious feuds a year, and spends the rest of its time acting as a lightening rod for disgruntled Wikipedos. As Moulton preaches, and as I have learned myself watching these things, in these environments the focus of all drama ascends to the top. It wouldn't make any difference if a consortium including Nelson Mandela, Judge Judy and King Solomon served on the Committee. The lunatic drama engine that is Wikipedia can not be stopped.

OK, assume the hypothesis that Wikipedia has just been 'nationalised' on the Toxic Asset Relief Plan. You are the government minister tasked with sorting the project out. What are your immediate steps?

[edit] You can do anything you like, from closing it down to firing Jimbo or beheading him and putting his head on a pike in front of Tower of London/Capitol Hill whatever. You can do nothing. But what?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 17th November 2008, 12:53pm

[Kato]

See:

1. Ten Reasons Why The Arbitration Committee Doesn’t Matter
2. No matter who is elected, or who could be elected, the impact of the Arbitration committee will always be the same.

These elections serve merely as dramatic acts for the Soap Opera addicts. The Committee itself (mis)handles a small number of tedious feuds a year, and spends the rest of its time acting as a lightening rod for disgruntled Wikipedos. As Moulton preaches, and as I have learned myself watching these things, in these environments the focus of all drama ascends to the top. It wouldn't make any difference if a consortium including Nelson Mandela, Judge Judy and King Solomon served on the Committee. The lunatic drama engine that is Wikipedia can not be stopped.

OK, assume the hypothesis that Wikipedia has just been 'nationalised' on the Toxic Asset Relief Plan. You are the government minister tasked with sorting the project out. What are your immediate steps?

[edit] You can do anything you like, from closing it down to firing Jimbo or beheading him and putting his head on a pike in front of Tower of London/Capitol Hill whatever. You can do nothing. But what?

Thank everyone for their hard work compiling a massive body of work. Then very publicly proceed with the following measures. These need to be public because Wikipedia needs to be seen to be setting an example to the rest of the internet. So far, Wikipedia has set a bad example that has caused significant problems to innocent individuals, and WP is having a growing negative effect on our society / civilization that needs to be curtailed.

1. Implement these measures on Biographies immediately
2. Begin moving the project towards Larry Sanger's model of verified contributors and far greater accountability. Install some version of flagged revisions.
3. Plan for the "Professionalization" of all of Wikipedia's content within 3 years. Construct a model based around advertising and large public donations that allows for a significant workforce of paid professionals to handle content.

I realize that the above will spoil a lot of Wikipedos' fun and games, but I'm not interested in that. What matters is the impact WP has on readers, the impact on article subjects, and the impact on wider society.

[Giggy]

I realize that the above will spoil a lot of Wikipedo's fun and games, but I'm not interested in that. What matters is the impact WP has on readers, the impact on article subjects, and the impact on wider society.

Aah well, at least you recognise why your good idea is not going to become anything more than a good idea.