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

[Kelly Martin]

I'd personally do away with RfA entirely; administrators would be appointed by an elected "administration committee" which itself is elected by secret ballot. I'd also recommend assigning different administrators different duty areas depending on competency and skills, possibly even breaking up the rights bundle accordingly.

I didn't address the content side in my earlier suggestions. Changes to deal with content issues would necessarily include:

• Multiple parallel articles on the same topic. NPOV is fundamentally unworkable; the myth of "one truth, one article" is one of Jimmy's most toxicly stupid juvenile fantasies.
• Some sort of prepublication review, at least on "controversial" topics including all biographies of living or recently deceased individuals. No article content edit sees the light of day without at least two sets of eyes on it, and at least one of those sets of eyes will be identified by a verified real name.
• Named, identified, and verified subject-matter experts responsible for first-order content dispute resolution within those topic areas.

[KD Tries Again]

[*]Multiple parallel articles on the same topic. NPOV is fundamentally unworkable; the myth of "one truth, one article" is one of Jimmy's most toxicly stupid juvenile fantasies.

I think the idea that a statement is either true or false predates Wikipedia. This suggestion doesn't appeal.