On 7/27/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@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