I'm not a big fan of abstract calls for strong leadership, and I genuinely
don't see Arbcom as being a disaster - though there could be things it has
done that I'm not aware of. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to changes that
would make the pedia a "healthy, collaborative and fair creative
community", just not convinced that reforming or replacing Arbcom is the
place to start.
Without knowing which aspects of the pedia Marc and Phil diagnose as
unfair or unhealthy it is difficult to know if your diagnosis is the same
or the reverse of mine. Though our preferred solutions are certainly
dissimilar. I'm not convinced that "lack of a formal, structured
full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia
Project". Remember the wiki is at its strongest as a self organising
community where people don't have to file requests in triplicate with some
commissar. I like the flexibility of being able to launch things like the
death anomaly project without having to seek approval from some central
authority. To me "a formal, structured full-oversight body" isn't a way to
achieve a "healthy, collaborative and fair creative community", if anything
its the reverse.
That said we are a community in a longterm decline, which isn't in itself
healthy; But we are a large and committed community that is still getting a
lot done, so one shouldn't exaggerate the unhealthiness. We are still in
large parts an astonishingly collaborative community, despite the
unfortunate shift from fixing things to tagging them for others to fix. As
for the fairness, I'd be interest in knowing which specific aspects you
consider unfair. If there are any current or potential Arbs who you
consider unfair then the time to say so is during the election for Arbcom.
A well constructed case demonstrating that a candidate had a tendency to
unfairness would probably tank any candidate for Arbcom.
WereSpielchequers
On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a
> disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative
and
> fair creative community. My questions are:
Who has the power to change
that?
> How would the process that could evaluate
ArbCom, and bring about
change,
> get started? I would be interested in
helping.
on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com wrote:
ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you
are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community
(or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute
resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started
out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide
leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been
attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body,
but the "community" tends to resist radical change, which is of course
part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too
radical changes).
The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of
these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by
someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may
take months or years to come to a conclusion.
Carcharoth
I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that "What is needed is a body
other than ArbCom to provide leadership". It is this lack of a formal,
structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire
Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't
register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a
formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to
the structure of the Project require.
Marc
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l