Peter Ansell wrote:
I do not see why Wikipedia operates with a totally new type of community model that can't be at least compared to a proven durable model.
Being big and online is what makes it different. Many representative models have their origins in times when travel over long distances was not easy, and any practical kind of instant communication was not yet invented
Wikipedia is a digital project with over a thousand active editors. That makes it a decent size community in my books. Direct democracy may have gotten it this far but the problems with it are not going to go away by simply saying that it will work for the foreseeable future. There are numerous people on this list who have complaints about the current structure, of which sockpuppeting is just one of them.
In a fair analysis of the situation sockpuppetry is a distraction. One needs to begin in good faith from the presumption that most editors will not engage in such practices. Some people will remain who will nevertheless do whatever it takes to get their point accepted, but dealing with them is still a secondary issue.
Direct democracy fails when it overwhelms the large body of citizenry. If the average citizen of Wikimedia has to vote on so many issues that he has time for nothing else the experience is not a worthwhile one, and his vote will not be guided by an informed and reasoned process. If an issue comes forth now that has no apparent relation to what I am doing I will properly ignore it, but the downside may come two years from now when my editing is affected and I am faced with a series of cemented rules that make no sense.
Both direct and representative democracy have their shortcomings. A truly democratic system should be temporal as well as spatial. In other words there cna be no final determinative vote on almost anything because those votes make no allowance for the views of those who have not yet joined us.
For example, copyright law, as we know it, is largely the product of the efforts of lobbyists with a vested interests; the potential user of the material does not even know about changes which adversely affect his interests until it is too late to easily do anything about it. Someone who does not stand to receive financial benefits is not going to be able send a representative to monitor the negotiations of the WIPO cartel ... even assuming that he would be allowed into the room in the first place.
On the executive/cabinet role, I thought it was obvious that the [[WP:OFFICE]] setup sets the base rules and makes day to day effective immediately judgements when it thinks they are necessary.
I would only have problems with this process when it stops being limited to honest emergencies.
Ec