Fundamental reform of Wikipedia, ideas wanted Options

[Peter Damian]

Wales gives you complete charge, and you have three fundamental reforms that you are allowed to implement.

What would those be? And what are the problems or abuses that each are supposed to address?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 12th September 2009, 12:04pm

[Hell Freezes Over]

Wales gives you complete charge, and you have three fundamental reforms that you are allowed to implement.

What would those be? And what are the problems or abuses that each are supposed to address?

1. ArbCom elections with a secret ballot and candidates using their real names during the election, not just after being appointed. I'd form a committee of trusted editors tasked with ensuring the offered names are genuine. The outcome of the election alone to determine who gets appointed.

-- It would reduce the likelihood of socking to get on ArbCom (though it wouldn't eliminate it). Would make the process and outcome more professional.

-- Downside: it would discourage people who've edited in contentious areas from standing, because they'd be less likely to want to identify themselves. That would mean fewer people on ArbCom with experience of handling contentious content disputes. However, the current process already favours people who've not been involved in disputes, so I don't think we'd make that aspect any worse, and I think the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks.

2. Either (a) no more BLPs unless the subject is already the subject of a biographical article in a high-quality mainstream publication, preferably an encyclopaedia; or (b) the subject has the right of reply in a pop-up box that's visible over the article. The latter was an idea of Patrick Byrne's.

-- The first option would remove most of our BLP problems, but would leave the project a lot less informative, so I'd be more inclined to go with (b) if we could make it work.

3. Everyone who holds a position (admin, Arb, checkuser, bureaucrat) to hold it for six months of the year only, and for the rest must work as an ordinary editor. The software would automatically give and withdraw access on a six-month rotation, assuming that could be done technically.

-- Would reduce the divide between editors, admins and others. Would prevent (or at least wouldn't facilitate) the formation of an admin class that administers the project but doesn't add content.