[Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution

[Ray Saintonge]

Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> From: "Birgitte SB" <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
>   
>> ... I believe there has been consensus for years
>> that RfA is broken at en.WP, but no one has a
>> solution... There is also an
>> acknowledged problem on en.WP of how to balance
>> anonymity with NPOV when people with suspected
>> personal and financial interests in an article start
>> editing it.
>>     
> Actually, just to comment on this: I think there would be significant 
> resistance within the en:Wikipedia to any external group - including VC - 
> that tried to "fix" RfA.  That is properly a task that belongs to the 
> project, and if the project has said "this is a significant issue, but not 
> one that we care enough about to fix yet", then I think that's a valid 
> argument (and I think it also happens to fairly document the current state 
> of affairs on en:WP).  I think the same applies to the example of how to 
> balance anonymity with NPOV.  I, for one, would have real issues with the VC 
> dictating to those issues, unless I was totally confident that the members 
> of the VC truly understood the community's feelings about them, and I don't 
> really know what mechanism could be in place to express them to the VC.
>
> I may have misunderstood what Brigitte was saying, but that's my initial 
> read.
I don't see in anything that Birgitte was saying as an advocacy for the 
VC getting involved in regulating or laying down the law on any 
project.  Simply stating obvious facts about en:wp's broken RfA does not 
equate to wanting to go in to clean the stables.

I can imagine the VC developing RfA standards, but it would still be up 
the the projects individually to apply those standards.  A VC that 
stepped in and tried to force those standards on a project would too 
soon become a part of the problem.  It can accomplish a lot more by 
showing restraint.

Ec