Stan Shebs wrote:
uninvited(a)nerstrand.net wrote:
Recent policy initiatives, such as
the deletion of unsourced images and the restrictions on anonymous
creation of articles, have been driven by legal, financial, and public
relations concerns rather than anything that any contributors to the
project have said.
I suspect that kind of policy initiative is simply more visible
because it has to happen quickly. To take an example of an internally
generated shift, consider the citing of sources. Two years ago, some
editors would routinely not supply sources, and defend their practice;
nowadays such edits risk being mass-reverted, and the editors' protests
would be met with scorn by all.
It would be nice to have more internal leadership. I think part of
the trick is to model after professional societies and trade unions,
where most leadership positions are part-time on a volunteer basis.
For instance, projects could elect lead editors, whose special role
during their terms is to preside over discussion on issues, and then
make an executive decision, thus eliminating the indecision arising
from those 56%-44% votes (think of city naming conventions). A lead
for user page policy could have saved a lot of userbox anguish by
being on top of the practice from the beginning.
Stan
The problem is that these positions are often elected - and as we have
learnt from the debacle of this and last last year's arbcom elections,
campaigning for these positions is *brutal*. There'll be even more
anguish if the 56%-44% vote decides more than just one issue. My
suggestion would be something similar to the current arbcom elections,
but less divisive. The community nominates certain people (how this is
done is up to them), who will then write their candidate statements,
etc. Those who oppose/support must provide links/diffs/etc. showing why
they oppose/support. For instance, "Oppose. [a few links to instances of
POV pushing]" Unless the situation may be ambiguous, there should be no
need to say "POV pusher" or "bad attitude". Then, the board will
review
the candidates' statements (and those of the people opposing/supporting
them), and make its decision. (If this was a bit hard to follow, please
let me know.) It sounds a bit bureaucratic, but I think it has a bit of
potential if we're going to have a "lead editor".
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])