In practice oligarchy is crude dim wits in charge. Examples are legion.
That a carefully selected elite can do things well is not at issue. But
an "elected" oligarchy is not that.
We have defined and used consensus but have mixed results. Making needed
policy changes is an extremely difficult exercise in practical politics.
And application of "consensus" to content of an article with a couple of
editors with an interest to advance is nearly hopeless. We probably need
to get a lot better at it than we are if we are going to use it.
Fred
Here's a question, Steve: what social problems
have been solved by
anarchy?
If we toss out "oligarchy", decide "voting is evil", and only allow
most
decisions to proceed on some ill-defined notion of consensus, that's what
is left.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Steven Walling
<steven.walling(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling
<tstarling(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
It should be obvious that what is missing is
discipline. An
arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a
long
way towards solving the problem. Some users will
be reformed when
their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin
access),
others will just leave as soon as their
reputation is at stake.
Right! Because we all know the solution to social problems is
oligarchy.
Steven
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l