Peter Ansell wrote:
I do not see why Wikipedia operates with a totally new
type of
community model that can't be at least compared to a proven durable
model.
Being big and online is what makes it different. Many representative
models have their origins in times when travel over long distances was
not easy, and any practical kind of instant communication was not yet
invented
Wikipedia is a digital project with over a thousand
active editors.
That makes it a decent size community in my books. Direct democracy
may have gotten it this far but the problems with it are not going to
go away by simply saying that it will work for the foreseeable future.
There are numerous people on this list who have complaints about the
current structure, of which sockpuppeting is just one of them.
In a fair analysis of the situation sockpuppetry is a distraction. One
needs to begin in good faith from the presumption that most editors will
not engage in such practices. Some people will remain who will
nevertheless do whatever it takes to get their point accepted, but
dealing with them is still a secondary issue.
Direct democracy fails when it overwhelms the large body of citizenry.
If the average citizen of Wikimedia has to vote on so many issues that
he has time for nothing else the experience is not a worthwhile one, and
his vote will not be guided by an informed and reasoned process. If an
issue comes forth now that has no apparent relation to what I am doing I
will properly ignore it, but the downside may come two years from now
when my editing is affected and I am faced with a series of cemented
rules that make no sense.
Both direct and representative democracy have their shortcomings. A
truly democratic system should be temporal as well as spatial. In other
words there cna be no final determinative vote on almost anything
because those votes make no allowance for the views of those who have
not yet joined us.
For example, copyright law, as we know it, is largely the product of the
efforts of lobbyists with a vested interests; the potential user of the
material does not even know about changes which adversely affect his
interests until it is too late to easily do anything about it. Someone
who does not stand to receive financial benefits is not going to be able
send a representative to monitor the negotiations of the WIPO cartel ...
even assuming that he would be allowed into the room in the first place.
On the executive/cabinet role, I thought it was obvious
that the
[[WP:OFFICE]] setup sets the base rules and makes day to day effective
immediately judgements when it thinks they are necessary.
I would only have problems with this process when it stops being limited
to honest emergencies.
Ec