On 10/26/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/25/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w
Jimbo's decision.
Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters
strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like
myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no
chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better
arbiter?
Jimbo is remarkably easy to talk to and is pretty accessible. If you
want to be an Arbitrator, it really does make sense for you to make
the minimal effort to make contact with Jimbo.
Anyone who doesn't realize that there are influence structures in
Wikipedia isn't paying attention. If you want to move up in
influence, it helps to be known, and known well, to those who already
have it. This is true whether people with influence are selected by
appointment or by election.
Not it is not. If they are selected by election it means that have
influence/ the trust of the wider comuity. If they are apointed they
have influence with / the trust of a much smaller group.
So much for TINC.
We have suggested choosing Arbitrators by loading
Recent Changes at a
random unannounced time and appointing the first 12 names to appear
there. While I think this would be resoundingly unsatisfactory to
most members of the community, it would eliminate most claims of bias.
:)
Not true. You would get a comitte biased in favour of whatever the
relivant time zone was. You would also be likely to end up with a far
from ideal comitte.
Wikipedia should be run by the comunity as much as posible. We know it
is posible to hold elections so there is no reason not to.
--
geni