[WikiEN-l] Common sense exceptions to our copyright policy.

[Erik Moeller]

On 7/27/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Much like the arbcom acts as a consensus tool to help us achieve
> consensus on bans and other such methods, a person in this position
> would help us achieve consensus for exceptions to our image use
> policy.

The problem you describe can be generalized to all policymaking.
Changing policy on Wikipedia is a slow and often intensely frustrating
process. A tiny, petulant minority can resist positive change through
sheer repetition. Often the process is cut short by bold admins trying
to do "the right thing" -- which then tends to lead to an all-out
escalation. Months after things have cooled down a bit, a solution may
emerge from the ashes. It may not be the best solution; it may simply
be that everyone is tired of hearing about the problem, and will
accept whatever compromise proposal comes along.

Elected or appointed expert committees are one way to deal with this
problem, and they may often work quite well. However, if we accept an
expert committee as a method to achieve consensus about policy, we
should equally consider direct voting on certain policy amendments.
Certainly, direct voting is a more participatory model than the
election of a decision-making body. And it seems as likely to lead to
an accepted outcome.

"But," I hear some people say, "you can't let ordinary people vote on
these complex issues. They do not understand! That's why we need to
have smart people to make these decisions for us. Through enlightened,
reasoned debate, surely they will find the solution that is best for
us all." I'm not sure that's true. There are good votes and there are
bad votes. A good vote is one where voters are presented with a
concise summary of the different arguments that have come up in a
discussion that preceded the vote, where the _options_ in the vote
have been developed through consensus, and where there is a strong
culture that pressures voters to read and understand all arguments
before voting. A bad vote is one that is done ad hoc, out of process,
with poor methodology and no clear prerequisites.

In my view, establishing clear ground rules for votes to change policy
is a better way to deal with the problem than delegation of authority.
It allows for community consensus processes (and indeed requires them
to be tried first), brings out as many arguments and solutions as
possible, and enables everyone to share the responsibility, credit and
blame for the result.

Erik