[WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee elections, 2005

[geni]

On 10/26/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w Jimbo's decision.
> > Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters
> > strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like
> > myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no
> > chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better
> > arbiter?
>
> Jimbo is remarkably easy to talk to and is pretty accessible.  If you
> want to be an Arbitrator, it really does make sense for you to make
> the minimal effort to make contact with Jimbo.
>
> Anyone who doesn't realize that there are influence structures in
> Wikipedia isn't paying attention.  If you want to move up in
> influence, it helps to be known, and known well, to those who already
> have it.  This is true whether people with influence are selected by
> appointment or by election.
>

Not it is not. If they are selected by election it means that have
influence/ the trust of the wider comuity. If they are apointed they
have  influence with / the trust of a much smaller group.

So much for TINC.

> We have suggested choosing Arbitrators by loading Recent Changes at a
> random unannounced time and appointing the first 12 names to appear
> there.  While I think this would be resoundingly unsatisfactory to
> most members of the community, it would eliminate most claims of bias.
> :)
>

Not true. You would get a comitte biased in favour of whatever the
relivant time zone was. You would also be likely to end up with a far
from ideal comitte.

Wikipedia should be run by the comunity as much as posible. We know it
is posible to hold elections so there is no reason not to.
--
geni