Stan Shebs wrote:
uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
Recent policy initiatives, such as the deletion of unsourced images and the restrictions on anonymous creation of articles, have been driven by legal, financial, and public relations concerns rather than anything that any contributors to the project have said.
I suspect that kind of policy initiative is simply more visible because it has to happen quickly. To take an example of an internally generated shift, consider the citing of sources. Two years ago, some editors would routinely not supply sources, and defend their practice; nowadays such edits risk being mass-reverted, and the editors' protests would be met with scorn by all.
It would be nice to have more internal leadership. I think part of the trick is to model after professional societies and trade unions, where most leadership positions are part-time on a volunteer basis. For instance, projects could elect lead editors, whose special role during their terms is to preside over discussion on issues, and then make an executive decision, thus eliminating the indecision arising from those 56%-44% votes (think of city naming conventions). A lead for user page policy could have saved a lot of userbox anguish by being on top of the practice from the beginning.
Stan
The problem is that these positions are often elected - and as we have learnt from the debacle of this and last last year's arbcom elections, campaigning for these positions is *brutal*. There'll be even more anguish if the 56%-44% vote decides more than just one issue. My suggestion would be something similar to the current arbcom elections, but less divisive. The community nominates certain people (how this is done is up to them), who will then write their candidate statements, etc. Those who oppose/support must provide links/diffs/etc. showing why they oppose/support. For instance, "Oppose. [a few links to instances of POV pushing]" Unless the situation may be ambiguous, there should be no need to say "POV pusher" or "bad attitude". Then, the board will review the candidates' statements (and those of the people opposing/supporting them), and make its decision. (If this was a bit hard to follow, please let me know.) It sounds a bit bureaucratic, but I think it has a bit of potential if we're going to have a "lead editor".
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])