On 10/26/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@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