[Foundation-l] wikicouncil

[Birgitte SB]

--- Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:

> Although there has already been a massive exchange
> in the last 12
> hours, I'm going to respond to the initial question.
> One problem is
> first mover (or first discusser) bias, and the
> entire conversation has
> gone down one way, when I think it's best to start
> with a fresh look.
> 
> What Damian mentioned about Wikicouncil as
> "representative democracy"
> is closest to what many Wikiretreaters in Frankfurt
> expressed - that a
> body of experienced, learned, informed, engaged and
> knowledgeable
> Wikimedians from different projects could form a
> body with real powers
> to decide on community matters and even for the
> purpose of being a
> body of electors for determinng the election of
> board members.
> 
> Wikicouncil folks would be responsible for things
> that  that either we
> (inappropriately) appeal to the "board of trustees"
> to do now, or ask
> developers to do on the fly. It's not fair to ask
> Brion or Tim to be
> decisionmaker for community decisions from random
> parts of the
> Wikimedia universe, and it's traditionally beyond
> the scope of a
> "Board of Trustees" to be managing down to the
> approve/deny level of
> individual projects on a week to week basis. That's
> where a
> Wikicouncil would come in.
> 
> As for the argument that Wikicouncil would not be a
> "direct
> democracy," I mentioned this to Erik in Frankfurt,
> but I believe there
> is a less compelling argument for every Wikimedian
> having equal vote
> as any other Wikimedian for some value of "n" edits
> and "m" months of
> membership. The idea of every community member
> getting equal say as in
> a "true democracy" is not compelling since there is
> no concept of
> "natural citizenship" in Wikipedia - people join by
> choice, they
> self-identify for tasks, and they elevate. It is
> different than a
> citizen of a country or territory. As Damian noted,
> many folks don't
> know, nor do they care, for issues related to higher
> level governance
> or WMF board matters. They're there to write an
> encyclopedia, create a
> Wikiversity course, contribute to Commons, etc. A
> Wikicouncil would
> have the expertise of folks who have put in the
> time, passion, energy
> and thought into working with the WMF community
> matters, while the
> board would oversee the big picture matters. I
> believe that the
> Wikicouncil would clarify and solve many of the
> problems we have now
> with the scope of board and executive level matters.
> 
> In this sense, I think the idea of a Wikicouncil is
> quite familiar -
> I'd imagine a Wikicouncil would be made up most of
> folks you will find
> right now in Wikiproject leadership, chapter
> activities, committee
> involvement, and the like. It would be a
> formalization of what takes
> place already, but where there is currently no
> procedure or authority
> to act on group consensus.
> 
> That is a brief summary of what hopes I saw people
> had in the idea for
> a Wikicouncil. I cannot speak for all the folks, so
> I invite other
> folks to chime in on this.
> 
> -Andrew
> 

I have not said anything because I am open to this
idea being developed in previously undiscussed ways. 
But the above statments I do not understand.  How is
this in any way similar to the ways things take place
already?  It strikes me as anything but familiar.  

I am willing to withold critiscism as people
brainstorm, but I find the above remarks quite
disturbing.  It is a few of the worst parts of old
ideas about the wikicouncil packaged as simply a
formalization of current process.  I am sorry these
ideas are in no way a representation of the way
current process works.

Birgitte SB


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Compare mortgage rates for today. 
Get up to 5 free quotes. 
Www2.nextag.com