Hi all,
Here is an overview of some brainstorming I and a few others have done on the concept of task forces for improving policy (a task force being a temporary organisation formed to work on a single defined task or activity). Task forces would be broadly responsible for an area of policy (for example, deletion, adminship, etc.), and would be tasked with coming up with improvements to an existing policy and creation of new policies. Please take "policy" to include both guidelines and policies.
General idea
Members of a task force would be appointed in some way (for example via elections), and would discuss amongst themselves the problems with the existing policy, how to improve it so it better serves building the encyclopaedia, and the removal of policies which do not help the development of Wikipedia. The various task forces would work the community to get feedback on all aspects of their work, including problems with existing policies, discussion of what works and what doesn't, and comments on their suggested proposals.
After a task force as a group were happy with their suggested modification of a policy, they would require consent from the community to implement it. This would probably be done via a simple straw poll, and due to the task force already having a mandate from the community to develop changes, would be typically lower than the usual "consensus" pass mark (e.g. a simple majority would be sufficient to implement the change).
I would suggest a task force for each area of Wikipedia policy, such as moving pages, each administrative tool (deletion, blocking, protection, rollback), manual of style, adminship, bureaucratship, recent changes, copyright, stubs, etc. Obviously, some task forces would have larger roles than others - some task forces, such as one for bureaucrat-related policy, simply may not be necessary due to the low numbers.
Use to Wikipedia
This would be useful for Wikipedia because of the increasing size of the community. Due to its size, people are excluded from topics they may be interested in discussing and debating but may not know are under discussion purely due to the amount of things which are under discussion. Unfortunately this means it is likely that good ideas are excluded. Forming a body tasked specifically with reform of an area, which actively solicits feedback from the community gives people a single place to discuss topics they are interested in. In a large group, decision making becomes difficult.
Inspiration
The general idea of this was inspired in part by select committees in legislative bodies. In the House of Commons, select committees are groups of MPs, from all political parties, each one dedicated to a different government department. Their role is to hold the government to account, solicit feedback from the general public, and to report to Parliament. While of course a direct comparison between Wikipedia and a legislative body is naturally flawed, the concept of a small body of people, interested and dedicated to a specific field, to help improve the system to improve its functioning is a good one and works well in practice.
Things to consider
* How would task forces be created? * How would members of a task force be appointed? * Is a single "policy committee" a better idea than having multiple task forces? * How do we ensure that a task force is representative of opinion across Wikipedia/has community support? * How do we ensure that time spent dealing with policy does not affect contributors' time spent on encyclopaedic articles?
Thoughts welcomed! I've also put this on Wikipedia, at: --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talrias/Task_forces_proposal
Chris
Huh oh... task forces... that sounds militaristic, therefore it MUST be a bad idea. :P
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Hi all,
Here is an overview of some brainstorming I and a few others have done on the concept of task forces for improving policy (a task force being a temporary organisation formed to work on a single defined task or activity). Task forces would be broadly responsible for an area of policy (for example, deletion, adminship, etc.), and would be tasked with coming up with improvements to an existing policy and creation of new policies. Please take "policy" to include both guidelines and policies.
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
After a task force as a group were happy with their suggested modification of a policy, they would require consent from the community to implement it. This would probably be done via a simple straw poll, and due to the task force already having a mandate from the community to develop changes, would be typically lower than the usual "consensus" pass mark (e.g. a simple majority would be sufficient to implement the change).
So much of this tries to put old whine in new bottles. It is based on the premise that policies should provide unchangeable black and white alternatives. Or that a majority vote creates a policy that will be binding on everybody, and remain fairly inflexible. It sets up situations where there are winners and losers, and minimizes the opportunities for those losers to seek alternative solutions.
This would be useful for Wikipedia because of the increasing size of the community. Due to its size, people are excluded from topics they may be interested in discussing and debating but may not know are under discussion purely due to the amount of things which are under discussion. Unfortunately this means it is likely that good ideas are excluded. Forming a body tasked specifically with reform of an area, which actively solicits feedback from the community gives people a single place to discuss topics they are interested in. In a large group, decision making becomes difficult.
This is all superficially true. At least the problems that you describe are very real. What we really need is new and imaginative ways to approach decision making, not just grafting tired old techniques onto the problems. Whatever the solution it must be very wiki. This implies a very high level of uncertainty that goes well beyond the comfort zone of many people.
The general idea of this was inspired in part by select committees in legislative bodies. In the House of Commons, select committees are groups of MPs, from all political parties, each one dedicated to a different government department. Their role is to hold the government to account, solicit feedback from the general public, and to report to Parliament. While of course a direct comparison between Wikipedia and a legislative body is naturally flawed, the concept of a small body of people, interested and dedicated to a specific field, to help improve the system to improve its functioning is a good one and works well in practice.
Commons commttees may very well do what you say... to a point, but when they reach a conclusion contrary to the cabinet's desires party discipline must prevail.
Things to consider
- How would task forces be created?
Somebody starts a talk page
- How would members of a task force be appointed?
Let anyone participate at any time.
- Is a single "policy committee" a better idea than having multiple task
forces?
Whatever ... It makes no difference.
- How do we ensure that a task force is representative of opinion across
Wikipedia/has community support?
That's impossible.
- How do we ensure that time spent dealing with policy does not affect
contributors' time spent on encyclopaedic articles?
:-D Extend the length of the day beyond 24 hours.
Ec
On 2/17/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So much of this tries to put old whine in new bottles. It is based on the premise that policies should provide unchangeable black and white alternatives. Or that a majority vote creates a policy that will be binding on everybody, and remain fairly inflexible. It sets up situations where there are winners and losers, and minimizes the opportunities for those losers to seek alternative solutions.
I agree with the whole post. The thing is, Wikipedia, has less need than any other site for this kind of thing. We actually already have a group mechanism for updating policy. Our policies are constantly being reviewed by members of the community and challenged where appropriate. What would give the "task force" any kind of legitimacy or public acceptance? Nothing. This whole idea is sort of like selling oranges next to a public orange tree...
Steve
"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote in message news:43F5097B.9070104@telus.net...
So much of this tries to put old whine in new bottles.
If this is a typo, it's serendipitous in the extreme: how much of the traffic on this mailing list could accurately be described thus?.
ROFLMAO
On 2/17/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote in message news:43F5097B.9070104@telus.net...
So much of this tries to put old whine in new bottles.
If this is a typo, it's serendipitous in the extreme: how much of the traffic on this mailing list could accurately be described thus?.
Reminds me of an old joke: How do you tell the difference between an elephant and a grape? Jump up and down on it for a while. If you get a little whine, it's an elephant...
Steve
On 2/16/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
- How would task forces be created?
Somebody starts a talk page
- How would members of a task force be appointed?
Let anyone participate at any time.
- Is a single "policy committee" a better idea than having multiple task
forces?
Whatever ... It makes no difference.
- How do we ensure that a task force is representative of opinion across
Wikipedia/has community support?
That's impossible.
- How do we ensure that time spent dealing with policy does not affect
contributors' time spent on encyclopaedic articles?
Spot on, Ec :)
:-D Extend the length of the day beyond 24 hours.
Now *there's* a project worth doing. Does this involve Superman and world-sized gyroscopes?
++SJ
This "task force" idea is stupid. No one should be "appointed" or "elected" or "put in charge" of developing policy. Trying to develop policy is the prerogative of each and every Wikipedian, as is the process of building consensus and implementing the policy.