Advisory Council on Project Development Options

[Malleus]

Until Wikipedia's usefulness can be replaced by a comparable site, it will continue to dominate...

Umm... you do realize, don't you, that Google gets seven times the page views of Wikipedia, and reaches nearly four times more people?

Err, yes, and your point is?

The last thing you'd want to do is have the list of invitees determined by a popularity contest, because being popular on WP means not being a curmudgeon or activist. I'm not saying this is a worthwhile idea, but these people calling for the group to be "elected by the community" are probably just pissed that they themselves weren't invited in the first place.

Quite probably.

[thekohser]

Looking back at the events so far, I'd say that the main mistake the ArbCom made was in announcing the Advisory Council. They should simply have established the council without announcing it, then let it do its work. Announcing it merely invited the community to throw spears at it.

Yep, and they could have hosted their mailing list on a Wikia, Inc. list server.

I think the most spectacular thing to happen now would be for one ArbCom member to resign each day, in solidarity for opposition to the nasty, broken "community" bullshit, until there is no longer an ArbCom. Then we would watch Wikipedia quickly unravel.

[GlassBeadGame]

Looking back at the events so far, I'd say that the main mistake the ArbCom made was in announcing the Advisory Council. They should simply have established the council without announcing it, then let it do its work. Announcing it merely invited the community to throw spears at it.

Yep, and they could have hosted their mailing list on a Wikia, Inc. list server.

I think the most spectacular thing to happen now would be for one ArbCom member to resign each day, in solidarity for opposition to the nasty, broken "community" bullshit, until there is no longer an ArbCom. Then we would watch Wikipedia quickly unravel.

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
H IV, IV, ii

[everyking]

How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?

The Wikipedia community will never elect a "serious reforms committee" because the Wikipedia community does not want reform. How many times do we have to tell you this before before you grasp it?


Looking back at the events so far, I'd say that the main mistake the ArbCom made was in announcing the Advisory Council. They should simply have established the council without announcing it, then let it do its work. Announcing it merely invited the community to throw spears at it.

On the contrary, I think the idea of reforming Wikipedia governance is broadly popular, and I think that comes through in this RfC. People either think Wikipedia needs genuine reform, and the council is contrary to that purpose, or they think the council represents an actual step towards reform...very few people seem to think Wikipedia needs no reform.

[Kelly Martin]

On the contrary, I think the idea of reforming Wikipedia governance is broadly popular, and I think that comes through in this RfC. People either think Wikipedia needs genuine reform, and the council is contrary to that purpose, or they think the council represents an actual step towards reform...very few people seem to think Wikipedia needs no reform.

What I see in that RfC is a small but noisy group of people who persistently interfere with every effort to reform Wikipedia by claiming to be in favor of reform, but always acting to block it when it appears it might happen. It's very obvious that they do not want reform, but don't want to appear opposed to it, and so they make sure that no reform occurs except on their own terms, which are (of course) that no reform takes place. This is blatantly obviously SlimVirgin's position, for example.

When you combine that with all the different groups of people who think Wikipedia needs reform, but disagree profoundly as to what direction that reform should take, you have a guaranteed recipe for maintaining the status quo.

[Somey]

...People either think Wikipedia needs genuine reform, and the council is contrary to that purpose, or they think the council represents an actual step towards reform...very few people seem to think Wikipedia needs no reform.

Again, for many of these people, the word "reform" actually means "ban more nasty trolls" and "stop questioning me."

[No one of consequence]

On the contrary, I think the idea of reforming Wikipedia governance is broadly popular, and I think that comes through in this RfC. People either think Wikipedia needs genuine reform, and the council is contrary to that purpose, or they think the council represents an actual step towards reform...very few people seem to think Wikipedia needs no reform.

What I see in that RfC is a small but noisy group of people who persistently interfere with every effort to reform Wikipedia by claiming to be in favor of reform, but always acting to block it when it appears it might happen. It's very obvious that they do not want reform, but don't want to appear opposed to it, and so they make sure that no reform occurs except on their own terms, which are (of course) that no reform takes place. This is blatantly obviously SlimVirgin's position, for example.

When you combine that with all the different groups of people who think Wikipedia needs reform, but disagree profoundly as to what direction that reform should take, you have a guaranteed recipe for maintaining the status quo.

Top down reform is impossible because there will always be a strong minority, if not majority, who will object to any proposal that they didn't personally have a chance to debate on for 6 months and then vote on.

Bottom up reform is impossible because you will never get 75% of editors to agree on anything.

At least Arbcom tried something different, and it was strangled before it ever drew a breath.

The 2009 Arbcom elections are likely to be quite amusing. Pre-order your popcorn and avoid the rush!

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Has there ever been a truly independent, external review of the Pee-dia?

(Except for the executive-search firm employed to find someone to run the Wikimedia Foundation which concluded that Wikipedia was "too immature" as an organization to hire a chief executive ... before they went ahead and handed Sue Gardner a $6,000,000 check to play with anyway AND allowed her on to the board's nominating committee, so she gets to pick her own bosses too).

Funnily enough, I am just an oft accused and banished troll but, personally, I would have employed a real life ombudsperson or conflict resolution expert, a consultant editor from the world of real encyclopedias and perhaps a public affairs consultant to review what was going on.

Pick some intelligent, educated and experienced individuals, drop them into the middle of the Wikipedia, see how they get on and then allow them to feed back.

It could have been fun. A bit like a special 'Librarian's edition' of Survivor ...

"and let's see how Manny Rothstein got on this week with his RfC and whether on not he is going to Arbcom for edit warring on the Balkan Wars again ... even if he is a Prof. Emeritus at Universität Leipzig we know that counts for nothing on ... Survivor Wikipedia".

Oh ... I can feel another 'toon coming on.

Being seen to pick "known offenders" from within "the community", despite their obvious good intentions, was always bound to be like pulling Klingons off butthole hairs in public ... the cause of pain and embarrassment all round.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 12th July 2009, 7:59am

[Orderinchaos]

Glad to see them go. How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?

The most sound reason to reject the proposal in my view is the calibre of its selectors (en masse, not individually). I sort of operate from the general principle that if a body is performing its core duties effectively, it might then be trusted with other duties. The 2009 ArbCom is performing its core duties so poorly that it should focus on getting those right first without moving onto irrelevant sidetracks which will probably take their attention even further off the task. It's been my observation that they tend to "gloss over" cases, fail to read the evidence pages properly or properly investigate leads and are too willing to hit the nuclear option, and have driven several good apolitical editors off the project this way - broadly speaking previous ArbComs did an acceptable job at these things but too slowly and too conservatively for the community's liking.

There are plenty of frustrated editors and admins with serious questions about the current ArbCom's competency who'd like to see the decks cleared. However, that would likely not fix the problem as you'd have to replace them with other people, and the most capable volunteers we have are with some notable exceptions either gone, burnt out or not interested.

The process set up reminds me of a Sam Goldwyn quote: "I don't want to be surrounded by "yes men". I want people who'll disagree with me, even if it costs them their jobs." Creating a body which is then answerable only to it has slightly Tsarist-Russia connotations to me, although the whole notion of ArbCom having any real world parallel or significance is quite funny. That Colbert clip making fun of their names pretty much said where it was at

Personally I think a *proper* advisory council would go well beyond Wikimedians and extend to universities and business and such things, so that we don't end up in a self-reinforcing circle of opinions of increasing irrelevance to the real world, but I could see the anarchists and conservatives in the Wikipedia community lining up to howl that one down and insist it was a takeover by Big Business of the people's enterprise or somesuch.

This post has been edited by Orderinchaos: Sun 12th July 2009, 9:52am

[LessHorrid vanU]

Glad to see them go. How about the remaining arbitrators acknowledge the overwhelming community opposition to this council and instead speak in favor of the community adoption of a proposal that would lead to the election of a serious reforms committee?

The most sound reason to reject the proposal in my view is the calibre of its selectors (en masse, not individually). I sort of operate from the general principle that if a body is performing its core duties effectively, it might then be trusted with other duties. The 2009 ArbCom is performing its core duties so poorly that it should focus on getting those right first without moving onto irrelevant sidetracks which will probably take their attention even further off the task. It's been my observation that they tend to "gloss over" cases, fail to read the evidence pages properly or properly investigate leads and are too willing to hit the nuclear option, and have driven several good apolitical editors off the project this way - broadly speaking previous ArbComs did an acceptable job at these things but too slowly and too conservatively for the community's liking.

There are plenty of frustrated editors and admins with serious questions about the current ArbCom's competency who'd like to see the decks cleared. However, that would likely not fix the problem as you'd have to replace them with other people, and the most capable volunteers we have are with some notable exceptions either gone, burnt out or not interested.

The process set up reminds me of a Sam Goldwyn quote: "I don't want to be surrounded by "yes men". I want people who'll disagree with me, even if it costs them their jobs." Creating a body which is then answerable only to it has slightly Tsarist-Russia connotations to me, although the whole notion of ArbCom having any real world parallel or significance is quite funny. That Colbert clip making fun of their names pretty much said where it was at

Personally I think a *proper* advisory council would go well beyond Wikimedians and extend to universities and business and such things, so that we don't end up in a self-reinforcing circle of opinions of increasing irrelevance to the real world, but I could see the anarchists and conservatives in the Wikipedia community lining up to howl that one down and insist it was a takeover by Big Business of the people's enterprise or somesuch.

My eyes simply glazed over as soon as I read your second sentence; they then dropped from my skull when I read the second paragraph... You appear to be saying that SlimVirgin and Mattisse - surprising that they are on the same side in this one - are representative of the admins and editors of WP in decrying the current ArbCom, and that FT2 and Sam Blacketeer were the stars in the firmament of WP and are sorely missed for their integrity and incisive guidance (Deskanna being the exception, but then they did carry on in a differing capacity).

Are you certain you are posting on the correct website?

[Orderinchaos]

My eyes simply glazed over as soon as I read your second sentence; they then dropped from my skull when I read the second paragraph... You appear to be saying that SlimVirgin and Mattisse - surprising that they are on the same side in this one - are representative of the admins and editors of WP in decrying the current ArbCom, and that FT2 and Sam Blacketeer were the stars in the firmament of WP and are sorely missed for their integrity and incisive guidance (Deskanna being the exception, but then they did carry on in a differing capacity).

Are you certain you are posting on the correct website?

Firstly I've never spoken to SV or Mattisse... I've heard from and chatted with a broad range of people with similar and increasingly converging opinions about the present ArbCom over the months. The fact that as you say two individuals who normally can't see eye to eye are agreeing is merely part of a bigger thing.

Secondly I said "acceptable". One wouldn't have to look far on the RfCs to find an essay length piece I wrote re FT2. I am saying *in general* they had the skills or competencies to do the job and demonstrated that - whether they used them wisely is another matter and I certainly had plenty of cause to disagree with the way 2007 and 2008 ArbComs did things. I just happen to find the present one far more objectionable.

[Peter Damian]

Will it surprise everyone here when I say I am broadly supportive of this idea?

[Nerd]

Then we would watch Wikipedia quickly unravel.

The lack of an arbcom won't affect Wikipedia on that kind of scale.

[thekohser]

Then we would watch Wikipedia quickly unravel.

The lack of an arbcom won't affect Wikipedia on that kind of scale.

Good, then let's see it play out. Which ArbCom'er is the next to resign?

[Kelly Martin]

ArbCom's disappearance would probably have some impact on Wikipedia, although I'm at a loss to determine which of several different possible trajectories it would describe. Descent into chaos is not one of them, no more so than Wikipedia is already a chaos.

[Tony1]

The Advisory Council is unconstitutional, because it "advises" ArbCom, and ArbCom's constitution (policy) casts it as a judge of editors' behaviour. The draft update of the policy tightens this scope further. See my comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ment#Discussion

[taiwopanfob]

The Advisory Council is unconstitutional, because it "advises" ArbCom, and ArbCom's constitution (policy) casts it as a judge of editors' behaviour. The draft update of the policy tightens this scope further. See my comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ment#Discussion

You are one of the guys who got bitch-slapped by ArbCom for being a pure dick in the notorious date-linking fiasco.

Frankly, I think you got off lightly.

I remember reading the ArbCom stuff about that. Your squeals (above) about how they contain "Must" and "Should" and details on style are completely without merit: given the scale of the problem, and the intransigence of you and others, ArbCom was left with little choice but to try and fix the core problem, since without such a fix, it would simply resurface again when (at least) your probation period ends.

That they failed is a fairly good guarantee that when you and others are released from your cells the entire problem will restart itself. More fun for you, eh?

This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: Sun 12th July 2009, 3:56pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Will it surprise everyone here when I say I am broadly supportive of this idea?

[Kelly Martin]

The Advisory Council is unconstitutional, because it "advises" ArbCom, and ArbCom's constitution (policy) casts it as a judge of editors' behaviour.

"Unconstitutional"? You say that as if Wikipedia had a constitution. Wikipedia doesn't even have policies, in the proper sense of the word.

The ArbCom, like everyone else in Wikipedia, may do whatever it wants, as long as it can get away with it. That's the sole "constitutional principle" that governs Wikipedia.

[trenton]

Meh, the typical wikipedia clusterfuck.

Special award to User:Mattisse for being a jester and making the "debate" more entertaining.

I'd also guess the Mss. SlimVirgin and Durova weren't invited to be "founding members" considering their vociferous opposition to this group contrasted to being members of secret cabals in the past.