[Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

Tim Starling tstarling at wikimedia.org
Fri Jan 4 06:27:10 UTC 2013


On 04/01/13 16:01, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org>wrote:
> 
>> It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
>> arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
>> funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
>> way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
>> their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
>> others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.
>>
> 
> Right! Because we all know the solution to social problems is oligarchy.

The solution for social problems is to have rules and a means to
punish people who break them. This is well-established by experimental
psychology, see for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599936/

Oligarchy is not the only way to achieve this, but it is the model
typically used in these game theory experiments. So it is hard for me
to understand why you think it is ridiculous.

Oligarchy is a popular model for the governance of organisations. WMF
itself is governed by a Board of Trustees. Nobody seems to think that
is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that good behaviour on Wikipedia can be enforced by the
direct efforts of a governing committee. I am saying that a governing
committee could have sufficient resources under its control (case
officers, etc.) to effect significant change.

-- Tim Starling




More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list