Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[Eva Destruction]

The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.

I also agree that Iridescent, Everyking, and Tony1 don't fall into either category.

While some of you will disagree, I'd put Durova in there, too. I'm no great admirer of hers, but she isn't the same character she was a couple of years ago; I read her opposition to this as the voice of someone who's seen from the inside just how much trouble a "we are the elite" star-chamber can cause.

[Sarcasticidealist]

While some of you will disagree, I'd put Durova in there, too.

I probably should have specified that I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.

[Kelly Martin]

The only people resisting this idea are the people who have power currently and stand to lose it in the revolution (e.g. SlimVirgin) and the idiotic ideologues who have irrational emotional attachments to Wikipedia's current (lack of) governance (basically, the assorted wikianarchists running about doing nothing of value otherwise).

I'd say that that's unfair towards, at the very least, Iridescent. Actually, I don't think Everyking, much as I've sniped at him, falls into either of those categories either. There are probably others, but I'm not going to go through the whole list.

Edit: Actually, Tony1's another one that doesn't fall into either category.

I think the objection from the parties named above fall more into the category of "I don't object to governance so much as I object to how this governing body was selected". They're still being stupid, insofar as this isn't really a governing body, but I also think they're letting themselves be used by SlimVirgin by signing onto her nihilistic rant against any form of governance that doesn't give her free reign to do as she please. Everyking, in particular, is carrying a giant grudge against the ArbCom (no matter how justifiably) and is virtually certain to object to anything the ArbCom does no matter how much sense it makes; I don't consider him a meaningful critic in this regard. The ArbCom is no collection of luminaries, but it's the best y'all have got.

We are. I have to say, though, I've noticed you taking rather a less detached tone to all of this than I'm accustomed to seeing from you -- almost as if you still had a little of the amazing creature in you yourself...

Hey, I just want to see you idiots fix your hate-spewing, defamation-propagation, idiocy-perpetuating website. Do that and I'll stop pestering you about it. I might even take a break from writing articles about ham radio to contribute something to your little garden (although don't count on it: your editorial standards leave a lot to be desired).

[LaraLove]

"Turbulent tyrants"? The ArbCom announces out of nowhere that it's creating a new council under its control as a mechanism to direct project development, then ignores the overwhelming opposition of the community, and you're describing those two as tyrants? Seriously?

Hey, Everyking, since you've got such a strong grasp on what's going on, how is the council to "direct project development"?

[A Horse With No Name]

Hey, I just want to see you idiots fix your hate-spewing, defamation-propagation, idiocy-perpetuating website. Do that and I'll stop pestering you about it. I might even take a break from writing articles about ham radio to contribute something to your little garden (although don't count on it: your editorial standards leave a lot to be desired).

Ham radio??? Do they still have crap? Hey, if you really want to be retro, I'll spin some Moody Blues LPs on my phonograph and we can tie-dye Xeno into some groovy colors.

While some of you will disagree, I'd put Durova in there, too. I'm no great admirer of hers, but she isn't the same character she was a couple of years ago; I read her opposition to this as the voice of someone who's seen from the inside just how much trouble a "we are the elite" star-chamber can cause.

Funny, I read her opposition as the voice of some nut who doesn't know what the f**k she's talking about.

[Milton Roe]

Hey, I just want to see you idiots fix your hate-spewing, defamation-propagation, idiocy-perpetuating website. Do that and I'll stop pestering you about it. I might even take a break from writing articles about ham radio to contribute something to your little garden (although don't count on it: your editorial standards leave a lot to be desired).

Ham radio??? Do they still have crap? Hey, if you really want to be retro, I'll spin some Moody Blues LPs on my phonograph and we can tie-dye Xeno into some groovy colors.

You're thinking of CB. Ham is hard. You can transistorize it all you like, but you still have to bounce a *&%$ing signal off the 8&^%^$ing ionisphere. So, due to the "weather" and the unpredictability of Ma Nature, it's always going to be like white-water rafting no matter how good the tech gets.

[A Horse With No Name]

I probably should have specified that I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.

Well, you should invite them over to your place and get to know them better. Pour some Merlot, light some incense, get some John Coltrane music playing, put the leopard skin sheets on the bed, and start investigating their motivations.

[LaraLove]

I probably should have specified that I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.

Well, you should invite them over to your place and get to know them better. Pour some Merlot, light some incense, get some John Coltrane music playing, put the leopard skin sheets on the bed, and start investigating their motivations.

I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

[A Horse With No Name]

You're thinking of CB. Ham is hard. You can transistorize it all you like, but you still have to bounce a *&%$ing signal off the 8&^%^$ing ionisphere. So, due to the "weather" and the unpredictability of Ma Nature, it's always going to be like white-water rafting no matter how good the tech gets.

No, I am thinking ham -- I know the difference. I was surprised they still had ham radio today, considering all of the high tech shit on the market. Ham seems so old.

CB is (or was) fun.

[Somey]

...I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.

It seems relatively simple to me - it's just basic obstructionism. Any kind of proper "reform" in the WP context would probably involve a more government-like hierarchical structure, as opposed to the current setup which relies on "consensus" and endless discussion by whoever happens to show up that day. People with agendas will naturally prefer the way things are now, since the current system can be gamed and manipulated much more easily. Hence, they're anti-reform, unless of course the "reform" specifically suits them in some way, like making it easier to ban those with whom they disagree, for example.

There are probably also people who have a deep-seated mistrust of anything that resembles action-by-authority, those who are convinced that there's only one proper way to do what needs doing (which is usually theirs), those who just feel snubbed by the original selection process, and perhaps even those who fear change in general, though I expect most such people wouldn't involve themselves. There are probably lots of other reasons too, including someone saying something mean to someone else in an IRC session back in April 2007 that was actually intended for a completely different person.

IMO none of these things are mutually exclusive, right? In fact, all of those things could apply to any or all of those people.

[Eva Destruction]

...I don't know enough about Durova's and Slim's (yes, really) motivations so say which category they fall into, if either.

It seems relatively simple to me - it's just basic obstructionism. Any kind of proper "reform" in the WP context would probably involve a more government-like hierarchical structure, as opposed to the current setup which relies on "consensus" and endless discussion by whoever happens to show up that day. People with agendas will naturally prefer the way things are now, since the current system can be gamed and manipulated much more easily. Hence, they're anti-reform, unless of course the "reform" specifically suits them in some way, like making it easier to ban those with whom they disagree, for example.

There are probably also people who have a deep-seated mistrust of anything that resembles action-by-authority, those who are convinced that there's only one proper way to do what needs doing (which is usually theirs), those who just feel snubbed by the original selection process, and perhaps even those who fear change in general, though I expect most such people wouldn't involve themselves. There are probably lots of other reasons too, including someone saying something mean to someone else in an IRC session back in April 2007 that was actually intended for a completely different person.

IMO none of these things are mutually exclusive, right? In fact, all of those things could apply to any or all of those people.

You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses"): that WP does need change, and some kind of council is a good idea, but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas). Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Tue 14th July 2009, 6:10pm

[A Horse With No Name]

You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses")...

Yeah, but except for Malleus, the endorsements are from a bunch of idiots. I wouldn't be caught dead in a cheap motel with those characters.

...but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas)...

I am opposed to having this council "composed of fairly large people." Why should I be denied membership just because I stick to my diet and exercise regularly?

Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.

Say, does anyone on Wikipedia actually write encyclopedia articles anymore?

[endallbeall]

The majority of the community is wrong.

The majority of the community doesn't give a shit. Well, ok, that depends on how you define "community". Wikipedia has a lot of editors who edit away merrily on their pet topics, completely ignorant of all the idiotic wikipolitics. Are these people part of the "community"? They almost never vote or express an opinion on any of the usual drama pages.

The majority of the community is anon IP's, actually.

[LaraLove]

You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses"): that WP does need change, and some kind of council is a good idea, but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas). Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.

This is how the community damns itself. Regardless of the value in an argument, too often more consideration is given to who is making the argument. I've done it before, too. Someone I consider a complete toolbox makes a good point, and my first instinct is to dismiss it. Luckily, I'm not a complete knob, so I read it again objectively, then I support it.

Shankbone knows this. As does Ottava and some others. I often agree with people I generally have little to no respect for. Where the argument or proposal or opinion comes from is of little relevance when your focus is on what's best for the project.

[Eva Destruction]

You've missed out my motivation for opposing it, which I think is driving quite a lot of the opposition (at least, my explanation of it currently has over 30 "endorses"): that WP does need change, and some kind of council is a good idea, but the way this particular council has been presented de novo looks to an outside observer like Jimbo and Arbcom creating a Provisional Government of their buddies (and Jimbo's "I think such a body should be composed of a fairly large number of people, including some who are generally regarded as difficult characters or agitants - those voices need to be heard, even if in the main their proposals would be voted down" makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas). Thus any ideas coming from this council as currently constituted, no matter how good, are going to be seen as The Will Of The Cabal and won't be taken as seriously as they should.

This is how the community damns itself. Regardless of the value in an argument, too often more consideration is given to who is making the argument. I've done it before, too. Someone I consider a complete toolbox makes a good point, and my first instinct is to dismiss it. Luckily, I'm not a complete knob, so I read it again objectively, then I support it.

Shankbone knows this. As does Ottava and some others. I often agree with people I generally have little to no respect for. Where the argument or proposal or opinion comes from is of little relevance when your focus is on what's best for the project.

You don't need to convince me of that (hell, I'm the one up there agreeing with SV). A council produced by elections and a council appointed by Jimbo and Arbcom would probably produce the exact same agenda – and could possibly have the exact same members – but proposals coming from the latter will be slated as "products of the cabal", and the same proposals from the former as "refreshing and necessary insights". It's wrong, it's a pit Wikipedia dug for itself three years ago and only has itself to blame, it's a symptom of a fucked-up system, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

FWIW, if I were constituting a Provisional Government of Wikipedia council, my initial configuration would be:

Total of 24 members;
8 hand-picked (by whom doesn't actually matter – I'd suggest Jimbo or the WMF trustees nominate 2, Arbcom nominates 2, Raul and Sandy nominate 1, the Counter Vandalism and Bot Approval people each nominate 1 – I'd quite like to see Somey and Selina nominate one person as well, to give a genuine outside view, but I doubt that would happen);
8 elected;
8 "anyone who's interested put your names in the hat" and selected by lottery.

The element of appointment would allow people who really should be there but would never win an election; the elective aspect would give it some kind of legitimacy without swamping it in populism; the lottery aspect would allow ordinary people without the "recognition factor" to win an election to get onto the committee, and prevent it being the same squeakiest wheels again and again.

Of course, no way on earth this will happen.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Tue 14th July 2009, 7:15pm

[LaraLove]

You don't need to convince me of that (hell, I'm the one up there agreeing with SV). A council produced by elections and a council appointed by Jimbo and Arbcom would probably produce the exact same agenda – and could possibly have the exact same members – but proposals coming from the latter will be slated as "products of the cabal", and the same proposals from the former as "refreshing and necessary insights". It's wrong, it's a pit Wikipedia dug for itself three years ago and only has itself to blame, it's a symptom of a fucked-up system, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

FWIW, if I were constituting a Provisional Government of Wikipedia council, my initial configuration would be:

Total of 24 members;
8 hand-picked (by whom doesn't actually matter – I'd suggest Jimbo or the WMF trustees nominate 2, Arbcom nominates 2, Raul and Sandy nominate 1, the Counter Vandalism and Bot Approval people each nominate 1 – I'd quite like to see Somey and Selina nominate one person as well, to give a genuine outside view, but I doubt that would happen);
8 elected;
8 "anyone who's interested put your names in the hat" and selected by lottery.

The element of appointment would allow people who really should be there but would never win an election; the elective aspect would give it some kind of legitimacy without swamping it in populism; the lottery aspect would allow ordinary people without the "recognition factor" to win an election to get onto the committee, and prevent it being the same squeakiest wheels again and again.

Of course, no way on earth this will happen.

It's interesting to see you agree with me, yet confusing that you support the fucked up system by supporting what you say is wrong.

Your system has its merits, but it will never happen, especially considering that's a mighty big circus for a discussion group.

[Kelly Martin]

No, I am thinking ham -- I know the difference. I was surprised they still had ham radio today, considering all of the high tech shit on the market. Ham seems so old.

At the risk of hijacking a thread, yes, we're still around. A lot of the high tech on the market today was developed first by hams, you know.

For more on this topic, please see this thread.

[Milton Roe]

This is how the community damns itself. Regardless of the value in an argument, too often more consideration is given to who is making the argument. I've done it before, too. Someone I consider a complete toolbox makes a good point, and my first instinct is to dismiss it. Luckily, I'm not a complete knob, so I read it again objectively, then I support it.

Shankbone knows this. As does Ottava and some others. I often agree with people I generally have little to no respect for. Where the argument or proposal or opinion comes from is of little relevance when your focus is on what's best for the project.

We could fix this problem, with anonymous posting.

[Kelly Martin]

makes it pretty clear that he intends this group to be a rubber stamp for his assorted Bright Ideas

Jimbo hasn't had a bright idea in his entire life. Nothing he's done reflects an original thought on his part. Nupedia wasn't his idea; neither was Wikipedia. He takes the credit, but the ideas came from someone else.

No, Jimbo's intended purpose for this council is to give him ideas that he will then adopt as his own and run with, because he's incapable of coming up with them on his own.

[A Horse With No Name]

No, I am thinking ham -- I know the difference. I was surprised they still had ham radio today, considering all of the high tech shit on the market. Ham seems so old.

At the risk of hijacking a thread, yes, we're still around. A lot of the high tech on the market today was developed first by hams, you know.

For more on this topic, please see this thread.

Don't worry about hijacking the thread -- no one really minds. It adds spice to some mighty bland chatter. Really, can you believe these people would rather talk about some nonsense council instead of ham radio?