[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Stephanie Daugherty]

I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent dictator"
position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities
are, and how and when they should intervene.

I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open
comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with the same
oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. Election officials
would be selected for their neutrality - if we can't get sufficiently
neutral election officials from within our project, find members of other
projects that have minimal to no involvement in or connection to en.wiki.

I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal charter for
English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on which we are built,
and the form of governance with which we protect those values and steer our
project forward. This should be a simple document - a framework for policy
rather than a codification of all the policies we have, and when and if it's
adopted by the community, it should be submitted to the foundation for their
approval. I believe that they could approve such a document without taking
on the oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not
a lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. The
argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive aspects of
policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of governance, and other
crucial issues should not change except through careful deliberation and
consent of the entire community.

-Stephanie


On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>wrote:

> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell
> >> <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>> And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what
> >>> entity)
> >>> would approve and implement them?
> >>
> > on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> The community, by consensus, for approval.  Whoever chose to
> >> participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
> >
> > This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the
> > beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do
> > you
> > determine consensus?
> >>
> >> Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our
> >> current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does
> >> not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with
> >> what the consensus stands for).
> >>
> >> We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact
> >> efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his
> >> "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led
> >> to reductions in founder bit authority.  I personally disagree with
> >> that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now.
> >> Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an
> >> effective tiebreaker.
> >>
> > People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting
> > them.
> > It¹s a cautionary tale.
> >
> > I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its
> > members
> > are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed
> > are
> > led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but
> > have
> > the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward
> > achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the
> > Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has
> > a
> > voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest.
> > That
> > leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group
> > stays
> > focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless
> > hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.
> >
> > Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is
> > needed.
> >
> > Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision,
> > someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other
> > people's
> > lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to
> > inspire
> > us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we
> > can't imagine yet."
> >
> > And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas
> > from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the
> > former
> > without feeling they must defend the latter.
> >
> > It's time.
> >
> > Marc
>
> I stand ready to respect wisdom, but not authority. So if someone steps
> up and proposes changes that make sense I'm behind them all the way. As
> far as someone who thinks they can tell us all how to think, well, no.
> We'll make any change that makes sense. What are your proposals? (Other
> than having a great leader)
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Faith is about what you really truly believe in, not about what you are
taught to believe.