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

[Fred Bauder]

> 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

You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.

Fred