Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[Eva Destruction]

Surprised this hasn't already been mentioned here, especially since it seems to be composed of 75% WR members. While I'm more than willing to be pleasantly surprised, this looks like a very peculiar idea to me. (My thoughts on the matter are here).

[Eva Destruction]

FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this. Part of Wikipedia's problem is that those at the top don't like listening to people who aren't positive about the project. Someone willing to say "this project is failing" and articulate enough to explain why – as opposed to some of the "Wikipedia is evil and must be destroyed" brigade – might be just what Jimbo needs.

Regarding my preliminary opinions of this particular proposal, to save people trawling through threaded discussions for them, my personal opinion on it is:

I'm sure everyone involved has the best of intentions, but this looks designed to become Wikipedia's version of the European Parliament; a meaningless, unelected and unaccountable committee with no formal powers, which ends up only existing to rubber-stamp and legitimise decisions. Maybe I'm being cynical, but the current list of members looks like a deliberate attempt to create sinecures for the noisiest critics of the current setup, on a "better inside the tent pissing out" principle. This just looks like Arbcom's revival of Jimbo's old arbitrary appointments without the need for anything messy like elections or selection processes.

No disrespect to the individual people who've accepted, but I really don't think this is a good idea from either angle; either you're a fan of Wikipedia in which case it's diverting your energy into a talking shop which Jimmy Wales will ignore, or you're an opponent of Wikipedia in which case the energies of critics are being syphoned off into this heat-sink page (as well as the blow to the credibility dealt by the critics of the system accepting an appointment to what looks like God-king Jimbo's House of Lords.)

[Sarcasticidealist]

FWIW, I think Kelly (or Greg, for that matter) would actually be quite good at this.

Oh, I strongly agree, provided they're acting in good faith. But I believe that Kelly has a self-admitted history of acting otherwise with respect to her involvement in Wikipedia.

[Kelly Martin]

But I believe that Kelly has a self-admitted history of acting otherwise with respect to her involvement in Wikipedia.

I've always acted in good faith with respect to Wikipedia; it's just that my goals have not always aligned with those of other Wikipedians.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I've always acted in good faith with respect to Wikipedia; it's just that my goals have not always aligned with those of other Wikipedians.

And you've never knowingly allowed people to believe that you were pursuing the same goals as them?

I don't feel like doing any research, so I'll take your word for it if you tell me that I'm full of it, but I thought you'd characterized your motivations in being on Wikipedia -- at least at the end -- as "trolling" and "bossing people around".

[Kelly Martin]

I thought you'd characterized your motivations in being on Wikipedia -- at least at the end -- as "trolling" and "bossing people around".

I've claimed to be a troll, yes, but that itself was satire based on Wikipedia's anomalous definite of "troll". I don't recall ever characterizing my conduct as "bossing other people around". I am a take-charge sort of person (comes from knowing that in any gathering of random people the odds are that I'm probably the smartest person there; please note that my intelligence is not tempered in any way by humility) and that tends to rub people who like to think they're smart, but aren't, the wrong way. Wikipedia doesn't deal well with take-charge types of people; people there care less about results than you'd expect for an encyclopedia project.

Toward the end of my activitiy on Wikipedia, yes, I did engage in some actions which had purposes other than that evident on their face: my second RfA, which I fully expected to fail, was agreed to for the main purpose of it failing and failing badly so that people would stop asking me to run for admin. The side purpose, of creating drama and slightly more general discontent with the RfA process, was not unwelcome. My second ArbCom candidacy was primarily intended to get under Geogre's skin; I knew I had no hope of being elected but felt that it was important that Geogre not be elected an arbitrator and deliberately crafted my actions to goad an outburst from him; in this regard I was successful.

There was a time in which I held forth some hope of rehabilitating my image within the Wikipedia community, but I realize that that is a foolish hope, and there is no point in trying. My goal now with respect to Wikipedia is to find ways to minimize the damage it does to humanity, by undermining its credibility and public perception, and by (to what limited degree I can) altering its community practices to curb its worst excesses. (Undermining Wikipedia's credibility also benefits me by making it easire to dismiss the defamatory material Wikipedia continues to publish about me, material which it has, to date, refused to remove, or even acknowledge exists.)

Wikipedia needs to pull itself out of the Cult of Jimbo. I realize that this is very unlikely to happen, but I remain the eternal optimist on this issue. Having a noncultie on their council would likely be of some benefit to them, even if they can't see it.