On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
I think that I serve a useful role in, for example,
this situation with
WP:ATT. A major policy restructuring took place in a way that a huge
number of very active and high quality editors were not consulted. I
view my role in Wikipedia as being primarily about the defense of the
<snip>
is completely unnecessary. It is my intention to fade
into a purely
symbolic position over time.
IMVHO, there is a conflict between these two ideas: you are
simultaneously filling a need, and hoping to retire from it. If your
role becomes purely symbolic, then who will fill the hands-on role?
Who will wade into a debate on WP:ATT and fearlessly revert 5 months
of work?
Since the start, you've been the leader, as well as the token monarch.
If you move purely into the token monarch role, can we get a new
leader somehow? I think we will need one - there are so many
deunifying processes in Wikipedia, that a powerful, unifying leader is
a very good thing to have.
In a case like the present one, there is actually no
really good answer
about how policy shifts become official. In the case of 3RR, we had an
excellent approach... a broad disucssion, a community vote, and then my
personal certification that policy had changed. This led to a clear and
definable policy shift, without a wheel war or factions fighting endlessly.
If I understand you, you're saying that we don't technically need your
rubberstamp to get a policy through, but from a practical perspective
it helps. Is this symptomatic of an immature policy-making structure?
But we don't have to solve all the big picture
constitutional questions
when we can simply move forward usefully in the meantime.
Well, with respect, the WP:ATT situation presents a pretty strong case
for solving some of these problems urgently. Wiping out months of work
is a big price to pay for "moving forward usefully".
Steve