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

[Fred Bauder]

In practice oligarchy is crude dim wits in charge. Examples are legion.

That a carefully selected elite can do things well is not at issue. But
an "elected" oligarchy is not that.

We have defined and used consensus but have mixed results. Making needed
policy changes is an extremely difficult exercise in practical politics.
And application of "consensus" to content of an article with a couple of
editors with an interest to advance is nearly hopeless. We probably need
to get a lot better at it than we are if we are going to use it.

Fred

> Here's a question, Steve: what social problems have been solved by
> anarchy?
> If we toss out "oligarchy", decide "voting is evil", and only allow most
> decisions to proceed on some ill-defined notion of consensus, that's what
> is left.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Steven Walling
> <steven.walling at gmail.com>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.
>>
>> Steven
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>