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

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/1/11 9:02 AM, Stephanie Daugherty at sdaugherty at gmail.com wrote:

> (This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as
> HTML and mucked up the formatting)
> 
> 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.

Thank you, Stephanie. Now I understand why some of the other posts to this
and other Lists are nearly unreadable to me. I usually simply skip them
without having to take the time do decipher them. But yours was worth both
the time and struggle. And, thanks to the crappy weather we're having here
on the east coast of the USA, most of my appointments have been postponed
'til another day. I'm like a school kid with a snow day!:-)

I like your idea of an elected council. Unlike the present Arbitration
Committee, they would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or
behavioral disputes. They would hear appeals from persons who have been
through the existing process. Their role being to serve as the final arbiter
in intractable disputes, and an entity to hear and review proposals for
change; and have the power to institute that change. That Community-elected
body would then elect their leader who would have the responsibility of
being the final arbiter of disputes within that council. That council could
(and should) have a Mailing List, or other such mechanism for the Community
members at large to ask questions and provide their input.

The keys are stability, accountability and openness!

Marc