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

[The Wales Hunter]

Why would anyone listen to what this vile monster has to say about "reform?"

Because if the Devil told you your zipper was undone, you'd still check?

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter: Sat 12th September 2009, 9:02pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Why would anyone listen to what this vile monster has to say about "reform?"

Because if the Devil told you your zipper was undone, you'd still check?

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

[Emperor]

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

Your set certainly has more buzzwords. Way to go.

[GlassBeadGame]

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

Your set certainly has more buzzwords. Way to go.

..that from a guy who runs a junior high pep club.

[Law]

I would rid all Bio's dead and alive from WP. The site is simply not responsible to handle them.

I would make all admins accountable for De-Rfa processes.

I would kill the mailing lists. I would disable the email function.

I would get rid of CIV and NPA and let adults work shit out like adults.

Come to think of it, I think of WP like I do the Internal Revenue Code. I would take the site down, and completely rebuild every facet of it. In short, the more I think of it, the more I consider WP to be a car that is totaled by an insurance company. Sure it could theoretically be rebuilt, but sometimes the cost is too great. Just let it rot and get another one.

[Peter Damian]

Come to think of it, I think of WP like I do the Internal Revenue Code. I would take the site down, and completely rebuild every facet of it. In short, the more I think of it, the more I consider WP to be a car that is totaled by an insurance company. Sure it could theoretically be rebuilt, but sometimes the cost is too great. Just let it rot and get another one.

This would be the 'totally destroy Wikipedia' option, then, Law?

[anthony]

Come to think of it, I think of WP like I do the Internal Revenue Code. I would take the site down, and completely rebuild every facet of it. In short, the more I think of it, the more I consider WP to be a car that is totaled by an insurance company. Sure it could theoretically be rebuilt, but sometimes the cost is too great. Just let it rot and get another one.

This would be the 'totally destroy Wikipedia' option, then, Law?

Especially with the comparison to the Internal Revenue Code, I'm not sure what the "completely rebuild" and "get another one" parts are about.

[Law]

Come to think of it, I think of WP like I do the Internal Revenue Code. I would take the site down, and completely rebuild every facet of it. In short, the more I think of it, the more I consider WP to be a car that is totaled by an insurance company. Sure it could theoretically be rebuilt, but sometimes the cost is too great. Just let it rot and get another one.

This would be the 'totally destroy Wikipedia' option, then, Law?

Especially with the comparison to the Internal Revenue Code, I'm not sure what the "completely rebuild" and "get another one" parts are about.

Haha. Well, I would say that the IRC would have to be rebuilt in a comprehensible way. I'm not sure a country does well when no taxes are collected.

@PD - I know where you are going with this I'd only destroy it with permission, as I assume is part of this hypothetical. I get your point and it is well-taken.

[anthony]

This needs to be split out to another thread, but...

Well, I would say that the IRC would have to be rebuilt in a comprehensible way.

Simply defining "taxable income" in a way that doesn't contain any unintended consequences and doesn't contain any loopholes is, well, impossible. Granted, you could simplify some little things, but for the most part the IRC isn't even the complicated part - it's the treasury regulations, the revenue rulings, and the court cases which interpret the IRC where things get most complicated. The IRC could simply say "There is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax of 25%" and you'd still have the vast majority of the complications deriving from the interpretation of that rule.

As an aside, the so called "Fair Tax" suffers from the same problems as the income tax, because it doesn't tax items purchased for use in business.