David Gerard wrote:
On 23/04/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure why these attempts failed, but it may be that getting to know your fellow editors as humans isn't very conducive to creating a culture of mutual respect if you can't even respect them on a professional level. (The most active and vocal Esperanzeans also had some of the most active and vocal assumers of bad faith in their number.)
Much like the problem of wiki governance - 4300 frequent editors in any given month (and 43,000 less frequent editors) is somewhat more than 100-150. The usual solution is something to do with voting. But Wikipedia systems including anything resembling a vote seem to rapidly decay either into an insular committee of regulars or a lynch mob.
I think that one of the problems that derives from a voting system is the sense that once the vote is complete the results are set in stone. Votes become a technique for entrenching a point of view, and once the point of view has prevailed it becomes necessary to defend it.
I happen to believe that most votes should remain perpetually open. Once a predetermined threshhold has been reached the policy in question can be implemented, but the vote can continue and people can even change their votes. This helps to ensure that those who weren't editors when the original vote was taken can also have a say, as can those who simply didn't know the vote was originally happening.
Threshholds for reversals would still need to be established to prevent instabilities when votes regularly hover in the 49%-51% range, but as a progressive site we should always be exploring new ways of doing things.
Ec