If you could re-write the rules, Wikipedia reviews itself Options

[Eva Destruction]

Thought some people here might be interested in this page. Even though most of you probably won't agree with whatever conclusions it ends up reaching.

[Peter Damian]

Thought some people here might be interested in this page. Even though most of you probably won't agree with whatever conclusions it ends up reaching.

Thought I would bump this one as it is moderately interesting. Confusing that one of the contributors there is called 'One', not to be confused with anyone here, of course.

[LaraLove]

Thought some people here might be interested in this page. Even though most of you probably won't agree with whatever conclusions it ends up reaching.

Ugh. An hour of my life. I clicked on the page, read Majorly's first. No comment. Scrolled up to Iridescent's, agreed with most of it. Well written, as usual. Then clicked on some link she included which lead me to some other page and eventually to her talk page where I remembered a discussion I'd participated in and so checked back, then noticed my name in her TOC so checked that out, got a great chuckle from Wikipedia's goth UK spokesman's comment (hahaha, that's awesome) and uh, after some comments I ended up checking all sorts of links from discussions on her talk page. Iridescent, it's amazing how "in the know" you are when it comes to Wikipedia. Your talk page is really the place to be for the latest scoop on anything worth paying attention to.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

All admins/crats are automatically desysopped after 12 months and resysopped 3 months after that. This would break up cabals (or the perception of cabals) and force the "policy wonk" admins who (rightly or wrongly) are accused of losing touch with the content creators to periodically see things from the other side. -- Iridescent

A useful idea, presuming that the admins would have to go through the RfA process all over again.

The problem at WP is not the rules, which are for the most part reasonable, but the "gaming of the system" by entrenched POV pushers, many of which are admins.

[Eva Destruction]

All admins/crats are automatically desysopped after 12 months and resysopped 3 months after that. This would break up cabals (or the perception of cabals) and force the "policy wonk" admins who (rightly or wrongly) are accused of losing touch with the content creators to periodically see things from the other side. -- Iridescent

A useful idea, presuming that the admins would have to go through the RfA process all over again.

The problem at WP is not the rules, which are for the most part reasonable, but the "gaming of the system" by entrenched POV pushers, many of which are admins.

Note to anyone not aware – I'm User:Iridescent on Wikipedia, the originator of this proposal

My thinking behind this one was that it wouldn't be the "standard" RFA process but some kind of "does anyone have any strong objections?" procedure for resysopping after serving the mandatory desysopped-time. I doubt any admin would pass the full RFA procedure a second time, since every deleted "my garage band is so cool!" page creates a sworn enemy who'd turn up to oppose in any straight vote. I think forcing admins/crats/checkusers/arbs and all the rest of the hierarchy to periodically see things from the "lowly peon" side – and for all those in power to be aware that there will come a time when they won't have a block button to aid them in their battles and POV pushing – would go a long way towards clearing up some of the worst "I'm an admin, you all have to listen to me" power-trippers; . The flip side of the "adminship is no big deal" mantra is "non-adminship is no big deal", and this – coupled with my other proposal for automatic sysopping – would hopefully force people to see things from both sides.

Then clicked on some link she included which lead me to some other page and eventually to her talk page where I remembered a discussion I'd participated in and so checked back, then noticed my name in her TOC so checked that out, got a great chuckle from Wikipedia's goth UK spokesman's comment (hahaha, that's awesome) and uh, after some comments I ended up checking all sorts of links from discussions on her talk page. Iridescent, it's amazing how "in the know" you are when it comes to Wikipedia. Your talk page is really the place to be for the latest scoop on anything worth paying attention to.

I aim to please. Sadly, my aim usually appears to be off. But since I seem to annoy both the Defenders Of The Wiki and the Denizens Of The Badsites equally, I guess that's striking some kind of balance.


This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Mon 5th January 2009, 4:05pm

[Moulton]

For thousands of years, monarchs, politicians, and organizational managers have sought to construct the ideal set of rules so as to achieve an orderly, stable, well-regulated system. This notion is subsumed under the popular meme, Law and Order.

Rules are also used to define games. Most games (think of Chess, Checkers, or Go) have very few rules which are easy to learn, easy to remember, and easy to abide by.

Given a set of rules which define a game, there is a branch of applied mathematics called Game Theory which studies the optimal strategy for playing any given game.

Some years ago, there was a movie called Colossus: The Forbin Project that revolved around a computer simulation game called Global Thermonuclear War. That cinematic parable, drawn from a key insight in Game Theory, was followed by a similar thriller called War Games.

For the past decade, one of the most popular franchises on American television has been NBC's Law and Order. The endless syndicated reruns can be watched almost any night on the TNT Cable Channel, where the advertising slogan is "We Know Drama."

The point of all this, of course, is to note that rule-driven systems are not inherently orderly, stable, and predictable. Rather they are the recipe for games and dramas. Mathematicians have known for over a century that rule-driven systems are mathematically chaotic. Within the broad scope of Chaos Theory, the branches subsuming Game Theory and Drama Theory are probably of most interest to the general public, who lap up games and dramas along with copious amounts of beer and popcorn.

Now mathematicians will tell you that it's also possible to design orderly, stable, predictable, and well-behaved systems, if that's what you really want. But the solution is not to be found in any set of rules. Rather, if one wants a highly functional system that operates gracefully and with minimum of suspenseful drama, one must evolve beyond mere rules and embrace the subtle mathematics of functions.

This is not likely to happen in my lifetime. At least not among Homo Schleppians, most of whom are hopelessly math-impaired.

If I were running Wikipedia, I'd go with a set of rules that intentionally maximized the dramaturgy. It's clear that Wikipedians crave heart-pounding, knuckle-biting psychodrama, and they might as well admit that and design their system to become the premier site for live-action post-modern scandal-ridden theater of the absurd.