http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Governance_reform
May be of interest to people.
2008/4/24 Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Governance_reform
May be of interest to people.
Why is it not in en or simple? I think they are the must in these kind or things especially with something as fundamental (as I can understand) as this.
mike
On 24/04/2008, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/24 Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Governance_reform
May be of interest to people.
Why is it not in en or simple? I think they are the must in these kind or things especially with something as fundamental (as I can understand) as this.
What do you mean? It's a proposal for the English Wikipedia and is on the English Wikipedia...
2008/4/24 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 24/04/2008, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/24 Judson Dunn cohesion@sleepyhead.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Governance_reform
May be of interest to people.
Why is it not in en or simple? I think they are the must in these kind
or
things especially with something as fundamental (as I can understand)
as
this.
What do you mean? It's a proposal for the English Wikipedia and is on the English Wikipedia...
Forgive me - is this some kind of English phrased in a way many editors would not understand? or am I think/stupid?
*Wikipedia's traditional governance model has failed to scale adequately with the project's growth, and has become incapable of operating effectively in a project orders of magnitude larger than it was at the time the model was adopted.*
*Internally-motivated policy formation has effectively stagnated. The last major changes to the main body of policy--the BLP policy and the non-free content policy--were both essentially imposed from the outside, due to external pressure on the project. Major internally-driven policy proposals, such as the attribution policy, have failed to result in anything but the predictable "no consensus" outcome.*
*This is, in some sense, inevitable in a project with a perpetually open set of individuals available to participate. Policy debate becomes, in most cases, nothing more than an endurance contest between those who wish to effect some change and those who wish to retain the status quo; and, so long as those opposed to any proposal are sufficiently dedicated and sufficiently vocal, they can keep the debate going without any effective means being available to force a decision. The few attempts to do so by means of a general referendum have proven ineffective.*
Are you criticizing the level of the language used, then? I don't see a problem with it. Most editors on the English Wikipedia read and write in fluent, high level English. This is an interesting proposal that could work out quite well. Sort of a Catch-22 though - if it passes, it proves itself wrong. If its correct that serious internal policy change has become impossible, then the body will never be formed.
Nathan
2008/4/24 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Are you criticizing the level of the language used, then? I don't see a problem with it. Most editors on the English Wikipedia read and write in fluent, high level English. This is an interesting proposal that could work out quite well. Sort of a Catch-22 though - if it passes, it proves itself wrong. If its correct that serious internal policy change has become impossible, then the body will never be formed.
Nathan
I neither see it as "high level" English nor academic English. It certainly isn't the kind of English that should be used on any space in Wikipedia. It presumes an understanding of a legal system and If I am very wrong (a) the phrasing is incorrect and (b) Wikipedia has never set itself out to be conditioned by (i) democracy (ii)wiki-law and wiki-lawers.
dunno it all seems wrong
mike
Forgive me - is this some kind of English phrased in a way many editors would not understand? or am I think/stupid?
Ah, you mean why isn't it in *plain* English? It would be about twice as long if it was, for a start. I expect most people interested in wikipolitics on enwiki can understand it - those that don't can always ask for clarification.
2008/4/24 michael west michawest@gmail.com:
Forgive me - is this some kind of English phrased in a way many editors would not understand? or am I think/stupid?
It's stilted, but it seems comprehensible enough to me. However, have a quick precis of each bit...
*Wikipedia's traditional governance model has failed to scale adequately with the project's growth, and has become incapable of operating effectively in a project orders of magnitude larger than it was at the time the model was adopted.*
a) The system of government, control, discussion etc that we have doesn't scale.
b) [Because it doesn't scale] it has now reached a point where it's broken down, because we're so damned big.
*Internally-motivated policy formation has effectively stagnated. The last major changes to the main body of policy--the BLP policy and the non-free content policy--were both essentially imposed from the outside, due to external pressure on the project. Major internally-driven policy proposals, such as the attribution policy, have failed to result in anything but the predictable "no consensus" outcome.*
a) The community has basically stopped being able to change policy in any significant way.
b) The last major changes to happen to the way we do things were the BLP and fair-use policy changes, and they were basically Orders From On High, not changes originated by the community.
c) Any attempts by the community to make major policy changes just end up stalling due to the fact that it's very hard to get consensus; see a).
*This is, in some sense, inevitable in a project with a perpetually open set of individuals available to participate. Policy debate becomes, in most cases, nothing more than an endurance contest between those who wish to effect some change and those who wish to retain the status quo; and, so long as those opposed to any proposal are sufficiently dedicated and sufficiently vocal, they can keep the debate going without any effective means being available to force a decision. The few attempts to do so by means of a general referendum have proven ineffective.*
a) Meaningful consensus is hard when you have lots of people, more of them turning up all the time, and no real consistency in that population.
b) Our current system means that anyone who doesn't like a change can basically stall it forever, with no way to easily move on.
c) We've tried mass votes to get past this, but they haven't worked.
To continue the analysis of the proposal,...
"The body would be given essentially unlimited authority to set project policy, so long as it is in compliance with Wikimedia Foundation policies and resolutions, the relevant laws, and so forth."
To my mind this is essentially unrealistic, given the GFDL or whatever later licence we migrate to; though of course "and so forth." covers a lot of ground. In fact it covers enough ground to plausibly constitute an [[Overwhelming exception]]. "Essentially unlimited" but in practise in the real world limited in an endless variety of ways and manners.
For those who don't know what an overwhelming exception is, it is a logical fallacy of the type (swiping an example from the article I refer to above):
'"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" (The attempted implication (fallaciously false in this case) is that the Romans did nothing for us). This is a quotation from Monty Python's Life of Brian.'
On 24/04/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
To continue the analysis of the proposal,...
"The body would be given essentially unlimited authority to set project policy, so long as it is in compliance with Wikimedia Foundation policies and resolutions, the relevant laws, and so forth."
To my mind this is essentially unrealistic, given the GFDL or whatever later licence we migrate to; though of course "and so forth." covers a lot of ground. In fact it covers enough ground to plausibly constitute an [[Overwhelming exception]]. "Essentially unlimited" but in practise in the real world limited in an endless variety of ways and manners.
The licence should be explicitly included in the list, you're right. I think generally it's an ok description, though.