Unfortunately, the various communities have demonstrated that any sort of
reform won't happen locally. Too many feathers would be ruffled, and too
many people think they benefit from the current power structure.
I do think that it's reasonable bringing it up at the foundation level, but
keep in mind that at the foundation level there is a tradition of
noninterference that runs very deep - unless something is broken to the
point where it threatens the health of the foundation as a whole, such as
legal and/or privacy issues, it's very unlikely that the foundation will
touch it.
On the other hand, I do think that some of our projects are proving too
large for self-governance in it's current form, but again, that's not
something the foundation is likely to touch until it's far too late, and
then it will probably do as little as it has to.
-Steph
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:08 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
<amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
2011/1/16 Joseph Seddon
<seddonwiki(a)gmail.com>
>
> I am going to be quite frank and say that it is pointless to have this
> discussion on this list. Only a fraction of the english wikipedia
community
> are on it. If you are genuinely serious about
this then propose it on
the
english
wikipedia. This is not a foundation level issue nor will it ever
become one so put it to the community.
That's the point - i do think that it's a Foundation-level issue, or
more precisely, movement-level issue. That's because "RFA is broken"
discussion are perennial in all Wikipedias which have functioning
communities of about 50 regular writers or more.
And in Wikipedias in small regional languages, which have only a
handful of writers i often see very confused discussions about
adminship which show that they misunderstand the concept - they think
that an admin is supposed to "administrate", or that they shouldn't
write articles until the Foundation appoints an admin, or that they
must draft a detailed voting process document to appoint admins - but
can't really vote until they have a quorum, etc. (This doesn't mean
that i know a lot of languages. These discussions are often held in
Russian or English.)
I believe that this confusion is caused by the heavy word
"administrator". Eliminating it and calling the permissions by their
actual names - "blocker", "deleter", "protector",
"reviewer" - will
likely eliminate this confusion.
One could impose a new groups / permissions structure from on high,
across all the Wikis, or (probably) ask the developers to add new
groups to a specific Wiki on a one-off.
It would probably be harmless to enable the more specific groups
globally, with local per-wiki decisions as to if or when to allow
users to gain access to them, and under what conditions.
It would probably be easier to test them out on one project rather
than try doing the global step first, to avoid the knee-jerk
opposition whenever the Foundation choses to change anything, but I
could be wrong.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Faith is about what you really truly believe in, not about what you are
taught to believe.