The Advisory Council was appointed by the ArbCom and explicitly worked under its direction--it was intended an advisory council to the ArbCom. And the community wasn't buying what you guys were selling, no matter how much you argued that the control could eventually be turned over to the community. Was it just me and SlimVirgin and a few other loudmouths? No, the opposition was overwhelming--something like 75% of those who registered an opinion registered it in opposition. And what did the ArbCom do in the face of a community consensus against its decision? Did it acknowledge the consensus, reverse itself, and listen to arguments for a community-directed approach? No, it simply allowed the whole idea of reform to wither and die without any further statements or actions. But the RfC didn't just demonstrate a consensus against ArbCom-directed reform--it also demonstrated a consensus in favor of some kind of reform. The lesson is obvious: if the ArbCom can't use reform to expand its own authority, it just isn't interested.

I remember making a specific proposal at the time. It went something like this: hold a referendum on the creation of some kind of body like the Advisory Council, and then have an election for it. The council then formulates governance proposals and submits them to the community to be voted upon. The only step in the whole process where the ArbCom would decide anything would be step one, and that would only be a decision as to whether to formally ask the community a question.

And the decision of the new body's initial composition (structure, not specific members), mandate, etc., the threshold needed for the referendum to pass, the rules for the initial elections...can you honestly say you wouldn't rage against ArbCom's usurpation of authority if it tried that?

I would agree with your proposal, so long as 51% approval was recognized as the bar for passing for the governance proposals. Anything else and it would be impossible.

51% seems kind of arbitrary. Is it possible you're confusing it with 50% + .5?

You have a point, but the reality is that someone would have to design a proposal before anything could happen. Of course, it's possible to go even further into it and say that the ArbCom could give the community an opportunity to express its views beforehand, and then it would ideally design its referendum to roughly match the organizational details seemingly preferred by the community. If people still objected to such details, then they could vote in opposition, and if the referendum failed, then the ArbCom could look at the opposition viewpoints and consider what would need to be modified in a future proposal to enable it to pass.



I've long thought that contentious governance issues should be decided by something less than the generally accepted threshold for "consensus". I think anything from a simple majority to 60% would be reasonable and workable.

Fair points all. But none addresses the referendum threshold issue. We have people complaining that a gulf of 14% in favour of secret balloting was insufficient to make that change. If ArbCom adopts the requirement of a bare majority for this much more significant change, can you imagine the outcry? But if it goes much higher than that, any proposal will be doomed to failure (and there will be people who dispute ArbCom's imposition of referendum terms no matter what the threshold and no matter what the advance consultation).

In fact, what you're advocating seems to contemplate a much greater degree of decree than did the council: that involved ArbCom setting up a powerless body simply to advise it, while this contemplates ArbCom deciding to throw consensus out the window on a fundamental change to Wikipedia governance.

Now, that's cool with me. But do you really not see how so radical a proposal makes a mockery of your objections to the council? And if not, on what basis do you distinguish them?



(The above wasn't there when I posted the beginning of my reply.)

I have my doubts that any proposal could ever gain 50% support, though in principle I agree that from 50% to 60% is a reasonable threshold for referenda to make fundamental changes. But what's the community reaction when ArbCom picks such a number itself (or even after an RFC)?

Probably worth noting that under a 51% standard

[*]Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG3 - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Friday - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keepscases - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benjiboi - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings - Closer than I recalled, but I suspect it would have met 51% if it had been a straight support/oppose sanction.
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface - A ban or sanction of some sort
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 - Nothing would have happened
[*]Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 - I think this may actually be exactly 50/50

In summation, it seems that leaving things up to a community vote produces as random a result as leaving it to arbcom and is probably no more satisfactory to one side or the other.

Now you're just trying to make me angry.

Well that is because 50.5 is still as incorrect as 51, the correct value would be 50+1/∞

I said 50% + .5, not 50.5%. And there's no need to go as low as 1/∞; because we're only comparing things to 1/2, that will suffice.

(If you're going to disagree with that second point, please provide a sample vote count in which a count of below 50% + .5 would make a majority.)

Good to see someone understands what a "majority" is. 21 of 41 is a majority although it s not "50% + 1." 501 of 1000 is a majority although it is not 51%. "50% + .5" covers it providing no fractional votes are allowed. Still why not just say any number > 50%?

When I was a young tyke, we had to say "simple majority" because they wouldn't let us use digits. And that was after we'd all walked 6 miles to school in a foot of snow, wearing nothing but Prada leather pumps and high heels.

No, wait, that wasn't school, that was that Soviet forced-labor camp. Never mind!

Less pedantic.

Pumps AND high heels? Is that like a turducken ?


That was a rhetorical question, right?

... I mean, you're asking Everyking to be consistent, and to engage in self-introspection... all in one go. You DO know better, don't you?

Couldn't the ArbCom consult with the community about the threshold? I'm not sure there's any great answer the question, because in the end the ArbCom might just have to impose a certain threshold. I would have no problem with that, although I'm sure some people would.

My objections to the council are centered on my opposition to ArbCom-directed reform--a body composed of people appointed by the ArbCom and responsible to the ArbCom, making recommendations to the ArbCom about future steps. I don't see the comparison. My alternative proposal is a body composed of people elected by the community and responsible to the community, which presents proposals to the community to be accepted or rejected. It involves the ArbCom exercising a greater degree of authority at the beginning of the process (setting up a community referendum as opposed to appointing a council to advise itself), but beyond that it would have no further power over the process.

Imagine a king decrees a popular election will be held to create a parliament that will take over the business of running the kingdom from the king's appointed ministers and advisers. That decree involves a greater use of power than the alternative (continuing to appoint ministers and advisers who will be responsible to the king), but in fact it means less power for the king, because he won't control the way the country is run anymore.

I tend to agree.

I see many problems with wikipedia - most of which could be solved if it were not for the project's delinquent mechanism for changing policy.

70% consensus threshhold is fine, if the people involved in the discussion pay attention so that a strong argument for a particular change, or against one of the options being considered, can win out. But few will follow the discussion in depth and people will keep objecting to one possibility because "my idea is better" when they've missed the discussion of six days ago that demonstrated that it wasn't. The problem is not the threshhold of 70%, it is that the constituency one is trying to convince keeps changing and the discussion resetting. It is why most societies work with some form of representative democracy.

I'm pretty confident that if the community had some form of representative mechanism for decision making, that things like BLP reform and flagged revisions would be more advance - and that less time would be taken up by many with circular policy discussions.

But you can't introduce an acceptable mechanism for making policy changes without a policy change, and that;s the rub. Someone is going to have to "ignore all the rules" in order to do this. It is a coup d'etat that is needed - and only Jimbo or Arbcom have the position to do this.

But to succeed, and to give the change some legitimacy, what they need to do is to grab the power, make the change, and then lay the power down. Create an independent elected policy board by fiat, and if people hate the idea, they can elect people committed to scrapping it.

Personally, I'd give such a board power to make any high-level policy change (not the colour of infoboxes please) in any area providing that 1) there was a general consensus that change was desirable. 2) the community had tried and failed to agree a change by the old mechanism.

This approach is wrong. It is not a question of reshuffling power within "the community." No group, clique, warlords gang or confederation of any or all of these can bring about change for the better for more than a quick moment. Real reform will come by reallocating which types of decisions are appropriate for the community to make and which need to be imposed by WMF board (implemented by staff) after consultation with stake holders in the wider world. This is a deeper form of democracy and open participation. This also is not going to happen any time soon.

Strangely, I agree with that also. The ideal would be as you say. But, as you say, that will not happen.

However, I do believe that a proper mechanism for the community to make changes would be better than what we have. The biggest problem with the Wikipedia community is that, even in those limited cases where most wikipedians are able to see what might make things better, the project is structurally incapable of making major change. The constitution has no realistic mechanism to amend itself. Even a Jimbo dictatorship would be better than total inertia - with a veto on movement by any clueless minority.

This is the problem we saw with any other attempt (like suggesting a new governance policy for an up-or-down vote). Any proposal would require "consensus," which is impossible for relatively simple changes, let alone fundamental shifts.

My hope, at least, was that the advisory council would ultimately turn into a sort of constitutional convention, which would draft the framework for eventual governance. We deliberately picked a broad cross-section, many who would never win an actual election, but had enough friends to attract a constituency for when the council would finally issue referendums. I hoped that these people (a small group) would actually be able to come to something like consensus, and inspire enough confidence among Wikipedians at large to successfully vote it in. I don't think any arbitrators really wanted to control it--Everyking's claims of a powergrab notwithstanding. Literally any system of governance would be light years ahead of the status quo because it would be able to make actual decisions.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that most Wikipols who were not offered a seat would oppose it.

I believe that any effective governance body would make ArbCom relatively less powerful, not more--even if it were under ArbCom's auspices. A governance structure would free ArbCom to confine itself to dispute resolution.

At this point, I think the site's veneration of "consensus" makes internal reform impossible. Everyking says that he's cool with ArbCom ignoring consensus (really?), but I doubt that's true of other elements of the opposition. Some will oppose "on principle." Some oppose because they think they have a slightly better idea, and they prefer deadlock to losing. Some seem to actually prefer stalemate.


I agree. I have said several times (often to criticism), that the site would be better if Jimbo were as dictatorial as some imagine him to be. He doesn't have the political capital to be dictator anymore though, if he ever had the power.

The site would be better if anything were in charge.

A benevolent well-informed dictatorship can be a good thing. Jimbeau, however, is neither benevolent nor well-informed. He is dictatorial when his personal interests are threatened (like how he has his own very special "founder" flag). Unfortunately those personal interests don't have anything to do with "writing an encyclopedia". As for being well-informed, Jimbeau doesn't really have the inclination. When he does exercise dictatorial powers, it tends to be because he listens to some crony whispering in his ear to further their own agenda, or to some random idiot posting on his talk page. This creates the impression of a capricious and arbitrary governance system.

The arbcom bit failed because IMO it was badly thought out - and not bold enough. Th problem was not that arbcom overreached but the limiting factors were the problem.

People objected to it because
1) It reported to arbcom - which made it sound like arbcom were grabbing the power not only to set the body up but also to decide what to do with its recommendations. Better to have the body totally independent.
2) It was appointed. That was never going to wash as a) arbcom were grabbing the power to appoint b) "I wasn't asked therefore oppose"

You should just have set it up and held an election. Its legitimacy would then have rested on the election and not arbcom's fiat. If people hated the idea, then they can elect representatives who want to repudiate it.

The notion of a cross-section who would never be elected to arbcom is good - all sectional interests thus get a stake in it. However, an election is capable of generating that too - if you use the right system. The current system favours those unobjectionable to many - but prohibits any section of the community getting their favoured spokesman elected. That's probably not a bad system for a judiciary that handles sensitive information - most people trust every individual elected. However, a representative policy body is better with a system that encourages significant minorities to elect their favourite sons - and thus feel their views are heard. I'd suggest a support only system, with each voter limited to, say, five supports. That makes Giano a shoe in - but would also allow in less-popular old-hands, one BLP extremist, and some other deep thinkers who's support is deep but not wide.

Yeah, the representation is tricky, but support-only might be a promising way to cope with it.

How would you deal with the problem Sarcasticidealist noted elsewhere--that is, obtaining consensus for the creation of such a body. One of the reasons we placed the advisory council under ArbCom is that it was thought we would not need consensus to create it--ArbCom is free to keep its own house. Besides, none of us intended the council to be the ultimate governing body, just a sort of constitutional convention.

An independent structure, however, would seem to need a mandate from somebody in order to have any sort of authority. Or would it also be formally powerless--charged only with drafting policy for later ratification by the community?

And Mussolini was a snazzy dresser who did a killer Louis Prima imitation.

I've said it before and I will say it again -- the only way WP could function correctly is by taking the IMDb approach and have paid professional editors serve in handling all administrative aspects of the web site, including settling of the playground fights currently being screwed up by Arbcom. By having neutral people with no personal stake in any conflict, the "community" would then focus solely on content creation.

Of course, 90% of the "community" would abruptly vanish since they don't actually contribute any content to the site.

Really, who are we going to trust to run Wikipedia? Law school students? High school students? People who never held any managerial job? No serious organization is run in such a stupid manner.



No, it failed because incompetent people are in charge -- the same reason that any well-intended managerial entity collapses. I don't believe any of these people have real-life qualifications to handle the depth and scope of the relatively meager duties that Arbcom covers -- and when they have to act, they create a shambles at every level.

I think it would be good to elaborate on the IMDb model in some detail. From what you describe it seem like a responsible alternative. It also seems something that could be achieved by WMF with a transition that might not be painless but would be achievable.

IMDb is like WP in that all of its content is contributed. However, all of the content is reviewed before it is posted. IMDb employs a staff of editors who go over the information being presented and, based on clearly stated criteria, will determine if information is published or not. If it isn't, the contributor receives an explanation why and advice on how to bring the data up to grade.

IMDb has a forum section where people discuss ideas and ask questions. It can be uncivil at times, but that is par for the cyber course. However, it is miles removed from the rudeness on WP.

Do mistakes get into print on IMDb? Yes, as with any media. But when pointed out, they are quickly removed.

By doing a clear separation of volunteer content contributor and a professional editor/manager corps that is trained and qualified to make decisions of an editorial and managerial nature, everything works without a hitch.

How many staff positions does IMDb have? How many do you suppose it would take to carry out similar functions on WP?

Here's the problem, though..... the IMDb model works well for its content because its scope is so limited.... if all the content is about movies and nothing else, it is much more straightforward to draw up, administer and enforce certain standards.

How could a paid staff (unless it had enormous resources) be expected to solve every nationalist squabble, inclusion/exclusion content controversy, article deletion, not to mention sifting through every contribution to determine whether or not it was true/serious/verifiable/vandalism/etc.

Offhand, I don't know. I believe they are part-time and spread across different locations.

How about Randy From Boise...he may be wrong, but at least he is certain he's right and that's what really matters in the land of Wikiality



The late, great Rod Steiger used to come on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and do a hilarious Mussolini impression. I miss that.

For the record-Jimbozo lacks the competence and character to be dictator of a men's lavatory.
Besides, there's his whole Randroid thing against the use of overt coercion. That's why for the longest time he did not give orders but rather made suggestions. Let me suggest that if he tried to act as a unilateral dictator today, he may well end up sharing Il Duce's fate.

Not exactly a limited scope, given the depth of coverage devoted to the subject.



Simple - you deny the nationalists, inclusion/exclusion and other idiots a platform to bloviate from. By having non-involved outsiders as administrators, rather than POV-pushers and hypocrites, you defuse the drama at its source.

As for sifting through contributions -- it can take up to a week, sometimes two, for new information to get on the IMDb. But that means the contributions are properly reviewed -- as opposed to the whack-a-mole game called New Page Patrol.

Voting is now underway.

I will probably win.

I hope you do. You're a good candidate.

In this context does winning mean being elected or avoiding all the work stress and enmity by not being elected?

It means ur mom lololololroflcakes

Oh dear, I fear Mr. Weber has slipped into illiteracy.

I propose a 3 minute silence for this tragic loss to the English language.

I think he's entering text in tongues, probably pandering to the evangelical vote.

I've heard those evangelicals are partial to a bit of tongue, I blame the parents.

^ Extreme libertarian.

You should blame Canada.

Sorry, Pastor Theo is not voting in this election.

So far almost 300 accounts have voted in slightly over 24 hours since voting opened. I hope this is a sign that voter turn-out will be higher than in years past. If so, perhaps secret balloting might have something to do with it?

Quite probably. Voting is easier with the voting engine than it was with the voting pages (fill out one voting form instead of making edits on dozens of different pages); lowering the effort required to vote almost always increases turnout. (See, I was paying attention when I took election theory back in college.)

I think I described in a thread somewhere here once about my experience as a polling station volunteer during the US 2000 elections. I remember that a lot of people tried to vote early in the morning on their way to work. Many of them, however, gave up because the lines were so long, in part because the polling station workers (including me) were so disorganized because of our inexperience in running a presidential election polling station. I wonder how many of those people came back after work when things were running more smoothly to get their votes in. I remember thinking, "There's got to be a better way to do this."

Secret balloting is an un-wiki travesty.

Well, yes, but so is not allowing people to edit each other's votes.

Indeed, actually, voting is an unwiki-like travesty. In pure wiki, there would be not arbcom and indeed no admins.

Wikiality.com tried that for a while. No one was to get banned, there was no such thing as "vandalism" (since they actually disliked too much "truthiness") - but someone (cough), logged in and moved all their pages to "Elephant" to make some POINT. I notice their mainpage is now carefully locked.

I'm not sure I understand why you think it would be a non-starter to develop consensus in the community, with the community on this new body. And as Everyking pointed out, what Arbcom should have done (or should do) is write up what they think the body should *do* not who should be on it. Then the community gets to massage it and massage it and massage it how they will (freely editing and debating) until some kind of consensus develops on what the body should do and why and how and who. And only then, after the documentary basis is complete, would there be elections to actually populate the body.... with bodies.

Well, I voted (almost) solely on the issue of BLP responsibility, and my conclusions were:

Support: SirFozzie; Cla68; Shell Kinney; Fred Bauder; Fritzpoll; Steve Smith; Coren; Mailer diablo (surprised by this one); KnightLago; Kirill Lokshin

Abstain: MBK004; Xavexgoem; Secret;

Oppose: Wehwalt; Seddon; RMHED; AGK; William M. Connolley; Hersfold; Kmweber; Jehochman; Unomi; Ruslik0

Coren? Coren has no responsibility except to maintaining his own ego. I'm very surprised at you for that one.

Probably a good time to revisit Coren discussion in this thread in which he was at a complete loss to understand why anyone might consider his involvement in the porn industry as a consideration relating to the decision about voting for him or not for ArbCom.