Remaking arbcom, sharing more random thoughts Options

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I'm sure being in Jimbo's back pocket will work really well when they're asked to arbitrate disputes about [[List of founders of Wikipedia]], [[Tax-status of the Wikimedia Foundation]], etc.

On such a high profile project, all they have to do is employ sufficiently high profile professional arbitrators or ombudspersons to manage or oversee Arbcom who at least have an interest in protecting their own reputations.

I know it is difficult to believe for anyone who has been sucked in and then passed out through the anus of the Wikipedia but, surprisingly enough, there are actually people in this world who believe in the old maxims of professional standards. I suppose your question is, who would choose the candidates?

I agree that this should be done. It is an insult to the intelligent of most people to suggest that "outsiders" cannot understand Pee-dia peculiarities.

I interpret that as, "independent professionals might be a challenge to our authority and the status quo" working on the principle of "our workers is free, so screw them ... why spend money on them when there are 100s more where they came from".

Any such body would very likely have to prove its independence quick as a case including Jimbo would surely be amongst the first to be requested.

If WP is going to move forward and regain cred, it needs to get rid of all admins and bring in professional editors and managers who can function in a neutral, non-partisan manner. Those who are dedicated to writing (not building) an encyclopedia will be able to flourish because they are dealing with serious professionals and not stupid teenagers or inane adults who have no qualification to manage anything. Those who are on WP for the drama will have no reason to be there and will vanish, leaving it to those who want to make a real difference.

Again ... this is inarguable. "Users" should be limited to backside talk pages, which should not be spiderable by search engines, making additions and suggestions that way.

If the "admins" really want to contribute, they could use the time they current spend pointlessly hammering gophers to raise money to employ such editors by doing some remunerable part-time work instead.

So the question remains, would we have an article on Gropecunt Lane and multiple ejaculation animations if such a system were to be put in place?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 11th October 2009, 2:13am

[CharlotteWebb]

On such a high profile project, all they have to do is employ sufficiently high profile professional arbitrators or ombudspersons to manage or oversee Arbcom who at least have an interest in protecting their own reputations.

Sure, let's let the pants-pocket oversee the shirt-pocket. Let's double the payroll without diversifying the interests, loyalties, or perspectives of the individuals in control.

[GlassBeadGame]

On such a high profile project, all they have to do is employ sufficiently high profile professional arbitrators or ombudspersons to manage or oversee Arbcom who at least have an interest in protecting their own reputations.

Sure, let's let the pants-pocket oversee the shirt-pocket. Let's double the payroll without diversifying the interests, loyalties, or perspectives of the individuals in control.

I'm not saying that everything must be done by paid experts, but at least let them employ real experts to design and oversee the replacement of ArbCom. Some work might be done by real volunteers, not the unaccountable users who assume every role now. Let these volunteers be actual agents of WMF, whose acts the corporation answers for when innocent outsiders are harmed. Then they will have the motive to identify, select, train and supervise like other non-profits do with their volunteers. Same goes for admins. Not all need to be replaced with employees, although a sizable cadre (dozens) would be needed. Some large role would properly remain for volunteers, accountable to WMF and WMF in turn to public.

The money is there. It can be used this way or for Jimbo Jets for Mr. Wales and Ms. Gardner.

[everyking]

The number one thing necessary to reform the ArbCom into a body that does its job properly and doesn't hurt the encyclopedia is transparency: require that all ArbCom deliberations occur on-wiki, excepting only the occasional sensitive matter in which details must be kept private. Another thing that would help would be full annual elections, but transparency is really the crucial thing. Also: any arbitrator who is inactive for more than two weeks should be kicked off the committee and replaced by the next ranking candidate from the last election.

[GlassBeadGame]

The number one thing necessary to reform the ArbCom into a body that does its job properly and doesn't hurt the encyclopedia is transparency: require that all ArbCom deliberations occur on-wiki, excepting only the occasional sensitive matter in which details must be kept private. Another thing that would help would be full annual elections, but transparency is really the crucial thing. Also: any arbitrator who is inactive for more than two weeks should be kicked off the committee and replaced by the next ranking candidate from the last election.

Sane dispute resolution will come by curbing the "community," not extending its reach even further.

[CharlotteWebb]

The number one thing necessary to reform the ArbCom into a body that does its job properly and doesn't hurt the encyclopedia is transparency: require that all ArbCom deliberations occur on-wiki, excepting only the occasional sensitive matter in which details must be kept private. Another thing that would help would be full annual elections, but transparency is really the crucial thing. Also: any arbitrator who is inactive for more than two weeks should be kicked off the committee and replaced by the next ranking candidate from the last election.

Yeah, the secession list (or "shadow arbcom" or whatever you want to call it) should be announced before the winning candidates take office, not in the hours after a staffing crisis arises. If you want to base it on runner-ups, that's fine, that's probably the fairest way to do it... as long as people need to know what's going on so they don't drop out of the election after waking up one morning ten votes behind "Wizardman".

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Sure, let's let the pants-pocket oversee the shirt-pocket. Let's double the payroll without diversifying the interests, loyalties, or perspectives of the individuals in control.

Did you interpret what I said as paying more to gain more highly qualified individuals? Again, surprisingly, there are ethical individuals out there. They do not have to be Americans. Certainly better if they are exclusively not. It would make a good job for retired advocates, deans etc. It could be brilliant.

But I agree with you on the old "if voting changed anything, they would ban it" basis ... can we expect the Pee-dians, or Foundation, to do anything that would serious change things? Probably not. So the whole project will gradually slump into something that serves the interests of ... and pays ... the foundation workers.

So attack their interests until they have to do something about it. If its reputation suck sufficiently, it will not be a good thing to have on one's CV, how ever much it pays or however cool its dotcom era offices are.

Shift the whole thing over to Bangalore, I say, and employ 24/7 staff and some old Indian judges. I think such functions need to take right outside of its original culture and West Coast comfort zone. You will find a load of good editors out there too.

Talking of other cults, it happened in the Hare Krishnas and worked out very well. Following high profile abuse incidents hitting the press, they were forced to create an independent ombudsperson outside of their traditional structures of "spiritual" authority. See: Harvard Law article

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 11th October 2009, 3:09am

[CharlotteWebb]

Did you interpret what I said as paying more to gain more highly qualified individuals?

That's ambiguous and depends on whether you mean "pay more to have more individuals who are highly qualified" or "pay more to have individuals who are more highly qualified".

In all seriousness I thought you were suggesting "hire those people to be the new arbcom" followed by "hire these people to oversee those people".

Apologies if I misunderstood you.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

Compose it of 101 members. Members are the 101 with the best ratio of support/oppose, somehow mathematically selected by sheer number of votes (arbitrary minimum number, or something more complicated)

New cases, block reviews, etc. need 11 members willing to look into the thing and make a report, then the voting on options is open to all members.

If the problem is herding cats, you don't solve it by making the herd bigger.

[Kelly Martin]

The number one thing necessary to reform the ArbCom into a body that does its job properly and doesn't hurt the encyclopedia is transparency: require that all ArbCom deliberations occur on-wiki, excepting only the occasional sensitive matter in which details must be kept private. Another thing that would help would be full annual elections, but transparency is really the crucial thing. Also: any arbitrator who is inactive for more than two weeks should be kicked off the committee and replaced by the next ranking candidate from the last election.

Sane dispute resolution will come by curbing the "community," not extending its reach even further.

Indeed. The direct election of judges is notoriously problematic.

Some time ago I said that "infinite transparency leads to infinite drama". This still obtains. The solution to Wikipedia's governance problem is not more transparency. Nor is it direct democratic control of everything.

Indirect election of the arbcom (that is, the electorate votes for a steering committee who then appoints the arbcom) might work, but I doubt that there's enough moral weight and reputational interest imbued in an ArbCom appointment for this to reliably curtail the incentive to malfeasance. Given that, I suspect that decisions made by randomized juries remain the best option available.

Not that it'll ever happen.

[Wizardman]

The number one thing necessary to reform the ArbCom into a body that does its job properly and doesn't hurt the encyclopedia is transparency: require that all ArbCom deliberations occur on-wiki, excepting only the occasional sensitive matter in which details must be kept private. Another thing that would help would be full annual elections, but transparency is really the crucial thing. Also: any arbitrator who is inactive for more than two weeks should be kicked off the committee and replaced by the next ranking candidate from the last election.

I'm not against increased transparency, and my mailing list posting #s are quite low as a result. Granted, it's something most arbs would have to embrace for it to happen where the community can value and appreciate it. Things that were held in private have moved on-wiki or to the community, but it's mainly been things one wouldn't think about unless they were often in the area. As for inactive, I presume you mean no edits to the 'pedia. If something happened to someone I'm not gonna hold that against them, though if they don't have the time to view the site more than once or twice a week, then yeah, arbitration may not be best for them.

Though SirFozzie's probably glad he's not an arb with all the crap that's happened this year..

[everyking]

As for inactive, I presume you mean no edits to the 'pedia. If something happened to someone I'm not gonna hold that against them, though if they don't have the time to view the site more than once or twice a week, then yeah, arbitration may not be best for them.

I meant inactive with regard to the ArbCom. If they are busily editing but ignoring their ArbCom duties, they should still be kicked off the committee. I remember in the past there were people who sat on the ArbCom for years but completely ignored it, even while they were happily editing away in other areas. If someone doesn't have the time or inclination to do the work, we should get someone else, and sooner rather than later. I feel confident that would at least remedy the problem of ArbCom lethargy (which is admittedly not as bad this year as it was in the past).

[thekohser]

Sadly, I can accept this rumor as fact. Mr. Godwin does not impress me. He did good work at the EFF, but since becoming a Jimbo-ninjo, he's lost his spine.

Where did you hear it, if I might be so bold?

A forwarded email, the parties of which I shall not reveal.

That's really weird, because I too received an e-mail from Mike Godwin recently, where he called me "nuts" and "looneytunes". I've added it to the "Jeers" section of my wiki biography, but make sure you don't miss the many "Cheers" immediately above!

It's really odd how I received accolades from diverse places like Comcast, SunTrust, Accenture, and the Nemours Foundation; but all of my criticism seems to emanate from the Wikimedia Foundation alone.

Why is that?

This post has been edited by thekohser: Sun 11th October 2009, 5:32am

[EricBarbour]

That's really weird, because I too received an e-mail from Mike Godwin recently, where he called me "nuts" and "looneytunes".

Haw haw haw. You must be making an impact after all.

It's really odd how I received accolades from diverse places like Comcast, SunTrust, Accenture, and the Nemours Foundation; but all of my criticism seems to emanate from the Wikimedia Foundation alone.

Don't complain. At least you know who your enemies are.

(I get attacked by anonymous assholes on music-gear fora, routinely.)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I'm not saying that everything must be done by paid experts, but at least let them employ real experts to design and oversee the replacement of ArbCom. Some work might be done by real volunteers, not the unaccountable users who assume every role now. Let these volunteers be actual agents of WMF, whose acts the corporation answers for when innocent outsiders are harmed.

Agreed on all counts.

It is like the need for the separation of religion and state, and an independent judiciary, e.g. employ a few experts who elicit, screen, manage and consult for volunteers from outside the immediate community.

You cannot have the crooks or bishops electing themselves or their buddies.

But did we discuss elsewhere that Arbcom was really not what folk though it was, i.e. it was pretty powerless?

So delete Arbcom and create a proper Ombuds service having powers to review an censor the whole shebang.

[SB_Johnny]

Compose it of 101 members. Members are the 101 with the best ratio of support/oppose, somehow mathematically selected by sheer number of votes (arbitrary minimum number, or something more complicated)

New cases, block reviews, etc. need 11 members willing to look into the thing and make a report, then the voting on options is open to all members.

If the problem is herding cats, you don't solve it by making the herd bigger.

One problem is too much workload for a small set (hence the fallout of the never-replied-to unblock appeal by undertow).

Another is that having a very small group runs against the otherwise egalitarian spirit that wikipedia used to have.

It also means the only people that will run for arbcom as it is now (a) have a rather amazing amount of free time, and (b) are already at the center of the "informal" power web. IOW, it limits the candidates to the small subset of editors for whom Wikipedia=Life. No offense, Luke.

[A Horse With No Name]

One problem is too much workload for a small set (hence the fallout of the never-replied-to unblock appeal by undertow).

That was just plain incompetence. Of course, it could have been a deliberate vindictiveness -- anyone ever consider that?

Another is that having a very small group runs against the otherwise egalitarian spirit that wikipedia used to have.

It would work if these people were qualified to hold positions of managerial authority. This clearly is not the case. Electing someone you like is not the same as electing someone with brains.

It also means the only people that will run for arbcom as it is now (a) have a rather amazing amount of free time, and (b) are already at the center of the "informal" power web. IOW, it limits the candidates to the small subset of editors for whom Wikipedia=Life. No offense, Luke.

Which is why having impartial, paid professionals who are not Wikipedia editors/admins as arbitrators makes sense. I cannot see how anyone can get a fair hearing under the current regime -- the Law/TU case was really the last straw.

[SB_Johnny]

It also means the only people that will run for arbcom as it is now (a) have a rather amazing amount of free time, and (b) are already at the center of the "informal" power web. IOW, it limits the candidates to the small subset of editors for whom Wikipedia=Life. No offense, Luke.

Which is why having impartial, paid professionals who are not Wikipedia editors/admins as arbitrators makes sense. I cannot see how anyone can get a fair hearing under the current regime -- the Law/TU case was really the last straw.

Fair enough, but it sounds like a position that would have rather fast turnover, and you'd again run into the "egalitarian" problem unless you paid the editors as well.

[Lar]

One problem is too much workload for a small set (hence the fallout of the never-replied-to unblock appeal by undertow).

That was just plain incompetence. Of course, it could have been a deliberate vindictiveness -- anyone ever consider that?

Occam's Razor says not likely. Every single arbitrator would have to have been in on it.(1) Much easier to just explain it by everyone thinking someone else was handling it and missing that it wasn't handled at all.

1 - I like this arbcom, but I suspect they couldn't all agree on what to have for lunch. No committee that size ever can.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Compose it of 101 members. Members are the 101 with the best ratio of support/oppose, somehow mathematically selected by sheer number of votes (arbitrary minimum number, or something more complicated)

New cases, block reviews, etc. need 11 members willing to look into the thing and make a report, then the voting on options is open to all members.

If the problem is herding cats, you don't solve it by making the herd bigger.

The more pernicious problem is cabalism, and SB's plan might have some merit. Divide the dalmations randomly into groups, and make sure that cases are assigned on a purely random basis, in order to make it difficult for respondents in the cases to conspire with their buddies on the arbcom, if they have any.