QUOTE(Lar @ Fri 12th November 2010, 7:32am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 12th November 2010, 5:58am)
For those who want to see young admins argue about what to do about it. If Sphilbrick keeps his cool he should pass. Nevertheless, I'm suprised that no one has done anything yet about those topic banned editors ganging up and retaliating against an editor who sometimes opposed their antics within the CC articles.
Other than voting support, what can be done that has any chance of actually helping? I feel sorry for Sphilbrick... speaking truth to cabals is never fun and most messengers get shot. (or at least shot at)...
That said I think there's a good chance this editor will pass RfA. Many folk are tired of this particular cabal and will vote support. I think.
My observation about this whole sequence, including my own involvement, is that the part of the core community that used to go for basic wiki principles (there was a whole ethos that made it work better in certain ways, though not efficiently and not without continued struggle) mostly burned out. At one point, I'd have had far more support than I did in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. ArbComm, predictably, interpreted the lack of support as a sign of deviance and disruptiveness, and, of course, anyone who stood up to the cabal would cause "disruption."
Underneath all this is, my guess, a kind of panic that Wikipedia will lose the core volunteers that stave off the end game. The community has lost the intelligence that could really address the long-term issues. It would probably be easier to fork than to save Wikipedia As It Is. Let this open mess continue and do what it will, sliding into chaos or otherwise; set up, independently, a governance structure that fulfills the vision of neutrality and let it govern the participation of those who join it, and let the true wisdom of crowds come out; it only comes out when structure selects for wisdom and trustworthiness, and maintains that against the natural tendencies to the formation of self-interested oligarchies.
And then use the product of Wikipedia as an entry point for a process that does nothing but improve, like a ratcheted gear that can only turn in one direction.
I assume that such a fork, because one of the things it would be aiming for is consistency with expert knowledge -- without worshipping it, and adjudicating between experts so that all expert opinion is reflected properly -- and anonymity is probably inconsistent with this, would require that accounts would be real name identified (absent special permission that a community might allow for serious security reasons -- and I'd not allow such accounts any privileges other than to make suggestions and point to sources. A dozen such accounts would have no more weight than one.)
Citizendium should have gone this way! It's not too late, Larry! Properly done, this would make Citizendium, immediately, superior to Wikipedia. I've described it elsewhere: The fork would automatically transfer all pages to the fork, but, once a fork page has been approved by the local process, changes from Wikipedia would become Pending Changes. Such pending pages, pending approval, would be flagged as unapproved, not considered reliable.
It's important that the local page not backslide; at every point, once a page has been locally approved (by whatever process, but it could be pretty efficient), it never goes backwards. If someone improves the Wikipedia page so that it's better -- again, according to local process -- then the Wikipedia revision becomes the local one, in toto or in part, as locally decided.
Unlike one of the prior forks, however, local process can independently improve pages. That might also be through Flagged Revisions, with a process for approval that isn't just "one trusted editor liked it."
A new community would need to face the basic problem with consensus process: if it takes a consensus to change, whenever the status quo favors a minority, consensus rule becomes minority rule.
I'm led inexorably to these principles:
1. Voting. Majority rule.
2. A community that values consensus, that sees a decision by a mere majority as unsatisfactory and only temporary, and needing some sort of continued consideration and effort to find a consensus solution.
3. Voting requires a defined set of eligible voters.
4. Voting requires an informed electorate. That is impossible as a routine matter for a large electorate. The classic solution is representation, the formation of empowered committees. Full electorate voting should be limited to situations where a major decision must be made, and consensus cannot be found at a lower level.
5. Long-term consideration of these problems led me to delegable proxy. Similar consideration, well over a century ago, led Lewis Carroll to what we now call Asset Voting.
6. If anyone wants to set up a truly representative system that does not require "parties" or "factions" to function, but which will function quite well in their presence, they should look at Asset Voting. It is trivially easy to set up and can be run as a "continuous election." It can be used with traditional peer assemblies, or with delegable proxy (where participation in high-level decision involves variable voting power, based on proxy assignments), or as a hybrid that routinely functions as if a peer assembly, but that can incorporate "tweaks" when low-level voters want to express something different from what their effective representative does.
7. Filtering is key. Process where anyone and everyone can fill pages with comments is doomed to gross inefficiency. It seems "democratic," but the effect is the opposite. However, it's possible to have systems where everyone is represented, and has a means of access that's filtered. In delegable proxy or Asset voting, the filter (for information flowing in both directions, though individuals can always bypass the filter for incoming information) is freely chosen.
8. My own organizational ideas are not crucial. There could be more than one fork, organized through different principles. I just think that my ideas are more likely to lead to success, but the proof will be in the pudding. I think they are powerful enough that there would be no need for more than one fork, if it's organized properly.