i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument would be over. Consensus still wins.
On 2/2/11, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
We seem to be confusing several separate issues here.
- Directive versus self organising organisations.
Those who believe that centrally controlled, planned organisations are inherently superior to and less chaotic than decentralised self organising organisations where power is devolved and individuals empowered to make decisions will tend to have a problem with the way Wikipedia runs itself. In political terms I see this as a Marxist Leninist/Liberal divide, I don't know why there are still people out there who think that a planned organisation with a strong leader should outperform unplanned but cooperating groups of empowered people, but there are people with that view and they will tend to think of Wikipedia as chaotic, and consider chaotic a criticism. I'm not convinced that real world political ideologies have a good match with Wikipolitics, but I will happily admit to being a Liberal in my instinctive assumption that "strong leadership" is more often a disadvantage than an advantage.
- Consensus versus Wikipedia's interpretation of consensus.
Consensus building requires all or most participants to be willing to discuss their differences and seek common ground. It fails when people realise that to frustrate change all they need achieve is a blocking minority.
- Direct versus indirect Democracy
Direct democracy has the disadvantage that it doesn't scale up as well as indirect democracy, and there is an argument that at one point EN wiki was getting too big to work as a direct democracy, however as the active editorship and active admin cadres are both dwindling that argument is losing strength. Direct democracy has the failing that a small minority of the clueless can give you inconsistent decisions; If 49% want better services and are willing to pay the taxes to fund it, and 49% would like to have better public services but not if that means paying the taxes that would be needed, and 2% want low taxes and better services, then in a direct democracy the 2% win both referenda and the idea of referenda takes a knock, whilst in an indirect democracy the 2% are the swing voters who decide which of the other options wins.
But it does have the advantage that you have a group of people from the whole community who are empowered to rule on intractable local disputes such as climate change and various nationalistic arguments. Whilst depending on the people who turn up risks driving off all but the fundamentalists.
The case for more indirect, elected democracy in Wikipedia would either depend on the argument that the community has scenarios where existing procedures have produced inconsistent results, or where the only people who turn up are involved, or that this is an acceptable way to get round the drawbacks of consensus.
My own experience of getting change on Wikpedia has been mixed, I was involved in BLP prod, one of the biggest recent changes, and little but remarkably uncontentious changes such as the death anomalies project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister_... Some of my other attempts to change Wikipedia have been rather less successful. So I've got a lot of sympathy with those who want change that has majority but not consensus support, much fellow feeling with those who support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them.
WereSpielChequers
On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss of independence?
Marc
You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of sense does that make?
Your use of the word "skulduggery" in this context is very telling, Fred.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l