Hoi, There are limits to the autonomy of projects. These limits have not been defined. In the discussions about a global arbcom it is suggested that it should only be there for the smaller projects. I do disagree, when autonomy is limited limitations imposed should be imposed equally. It would be discriminatory to put limits on others that you would not want to bear yourself. It is also true that the big projects have had the privilege to establish their policies. The English language Wikipedia has had the benefit from a lot of close attention and became what it is as a result. The culture of other countries, languages is different and the way Wikipedias will grow will also be similar but different as a result.
So far the Wikimedia Foundation has kept distance between itself and the projects. There are instances where the board has been seen to keep its prerogative to provide high justice when and where needed. It is for instance the board that gives final approval to new projects. This has worked well.
When a global arbitration committee is to deal with individual complaints, we will find people that will game the system. We will find people pressing hat projects all have to do things in the same way because it appeals to their sense of what is right. To a large extend this will create work, not provide clear benefits and it will not remove the sense that governance is removed from the ordinary editors. Far from it, it will create another layer of arguments decrying the distance between the organisation and the smaller projects.
So far, when an issue arose, there were people arguing for a resolution. This was not efficient, it took time but it often had the benefit that it resolving it self in time. The solutions were not always neat but when projects are independent, they do not have to be neat in our eyes, we can assume trust that it will move towards what is optimal.
I do not negate a need for a global Arbcom. I think that there is a need for such a body. I argue for reluctance in applying it as a tool. I would like to have a body that only deals with issues that require "high justice" on things where the autonomy of the project is preventing resolution. These are instances where blatant copy violations are supported. Where NPOV issues needs to be addressed because they are not acceptable. Obvious abuse of power by admins. Quiet or not so quiet diplomacy combined with the potential of a full fledged arbitration case is what works best. Such a case would lead to a recommendation to the board, and when the board accepts it, it is soon enough.
In my opinion the composition of the people who deal with an arbitration case would be optimal when it reflects the project it is about combined with people who are familiar with the WMF as an organisation. A Wikibooks case should include people familiar with Wikibooks looking at the issue. This in turn means that there is a premium when people of the different language versions of a project are familiar with each others practices, when things are out of hand, when diplomacy does not help, when things need to be addressed on a global level, there are only losers.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 5, 2008 6:14 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
He speaks Russian, but responds to English with Norwegian? Is that because Elisabeth is Norwegian? (scratching my head here). It seems like if the community there is unable to take steps, then the Foundation should step in. There are limits to the autonomy of projects, it isn't complete.
On Jan 5, 2008 12:11 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter < putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
What does "Unnskyld, jeg forst?r ikke." mean? Its transliterated it looks like, so translators make no heads or tails of it.
"Excuse me, I do not understand" (Norvegian)
Cheers, Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l