[WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/8/5 David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>:
>> Cary  suggests that it focus on enWP. As I see it, enWP has pretty
>> clearly demonstrated its lack of support for any committees not either
>> open to all who wish to participate, or else chosen by the enWP
>> community as a whole. I accepted membership in a committee chosen by
>> ArbCom, under the assumption it would be generally supported. Having
>> found out my assumption was wrong, I can't say I'd want to repeat the
>> embarrassing experience.
>>
>> I urge those--like myself-- considering applying to do as I intend to
>> do, which is to wait till the community has given its support.
>
> The WMF has always had the power to do stuff like this, ArbCom hasn't
> and doesn't. I don't think there should be too much complaining about
> this group unless people don't like what they come up with.

"I don't think there should be too much complaining about this group
unless people don't like what they come up with."

I'm not being silly here, but couldn't that good-faith statement you
just made apply to *any* group?

And just out of interest, if the WMF had proposed the group that DGG
(David) is referring to (the ACPD), instead of ArbCom, what would the
reaction have been then?

You *do* know that the WMF has proposed similar groups recently and in the past?

The recent one:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

I'm aware that there are major differences between the WMF's strategy
wiki and the advisory council (ACPD) that was convened on en-Wikipedia
(the main similarity being that they both had the laudable long-term
aim of improving the encyclopedia, the main differences being the
structure), but what struck me most was the differences in the
reception both got.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development

As I've said there, what I hope to see one day is a variety of groups,
using different mediums, composed of different people, operating to
different timescales, all producing good ideas that can be proposed
for community approval and implemented as needed. Long-term strategy
planning. I don't care HOW such groups start - it is the RESULTS that
matter.

Ultimately, the best such approaches will grow and flourish, while
those that don't, will naturally wither and go inactive. The key is to
have diversity to ensure that such groups are not restricted to any
one model or system.

What I don't want to see is the sort of
reaction-without-reasoned-discussion, and rapid spread of
misunderstandings (and if people repeat those misunderstandings here,
I will be very happy to correct them), that happened when the ACPD was
convened. That reaction (best seen at the RfC I linked above), and the
despair that reaction evoked in some people, is best summed up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development/Drini

The earlier group that the WMF came up with was this one, I think:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_Projects_Committee

There might be others, as I don't think this is the one Marc (Riddell)
was referring to.

Oh, and I should finish this post with a plea to everyone to go back
and read the original e-mail by Cary and to write to him if you are
interested in the BLP taskforce that he is putting together. Please
don't let any of the side-threads about these meta issues detract from
that.

Carcharoth