User talk:Karmafist/manifesto

• Kim Bruning 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Why are we numbering? I am not a number! And I disagree Mr. Chairman. Might I retain my individual voice?

This is a petition. Are you signing the petition? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 13:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a form of Communication. You have just chosen to participate in that communication with me right now. Kim Bruning 15:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So you state (by moving these statements out of the petition page) that the "petition" is not communicating? Kim Bruning 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kim, this is talk page communication -- it's there for threads such as this one. If we can fine tune the manifesto, that'd be great, otherwise, you don't have to sign. And as for individuality, just because you're part of a group of people who roughly agree on something doesn't mean you still can't maintain a unique voice, that group is just a tool that all people within it use to achieve goals geared around their general philosophies, such as a political party. Karmafist 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to your argument, and find elements of it compelling; ultimately it turns out to be academic; as you have in fact just denied me my unique voice. Kim Bruning 21:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See User talk:Karmafist/manifesto

...I believe that we are all equal under the policies and guidelines set by the community in achieving this goal...

that is an utter lie. karmafist does not truly believe in equality and has a superiority complex that gives him license (in his own mind) to abuse anyone he damn well pleases. this is an admin who should never have been conceived in the first place and cannot be desysopped too soon.

... I ask you to do so in the true Wikipedian manner: in a civil and constructive manner, offering collaboration on the talk page of this document.

except that karma need not be civil himself. as long as he has admin powers, he does not consider any need to be civil or that other related WP policies apply to him. a real practicioner of what he preaches.

beware of self-appointed populists. r b-j 06:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether I want to support the petition at this time. But is it really right for you to be asking for signatures in your welcome message? (see for instance User talk:ninjadrummer) Surely some Wikipedia experience beyond one image upload is necessary to judge this proposal on its merits? Superm401 - Talk 06:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Note

Please, edit things on the manifesto to make it more effective while keeping the main idea of it -- a streamlined way for all of us to fix and create policies, a board to oversee the enforcement of the policies, and the right to feel free from intimidation while on Wikipedia.Karmafist 11:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Why bicameral? -- Pierremenard 20:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bicameral legislatures are less likely to be subject to whims, and are slower-moving. I think that's a good thing. --James S. 00:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I like where you're coming from, but I remain to be convinced that a more formal structure of governance would help. Friday (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The principles of that manifesto seem within the spirit of Wikipedia. And the new ideas are good too (for example RFC aren't working, but if treated by sub-ArbComs they might have a chance). talk to +MATIA 15:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation on #1

I believe we need as many viewpoints as possible without being too complex, so a bicameral structure seems to be a good compromise.

The Lower house would be like an WP:AFD discussion -- all Wikipedians can propose and vote on policies and guidelines. The Upper house would work the same way, but would consist of a more select group of Wikipedians, perhaps Administrators or editors with more than a certain edit count. Karmafist 11:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Policy change

I am a bit concerned about the idea of changing the policy: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I don't doubt that lots of editors, lots of admins, and even the Wikimedia board or Jimbo Wales himself, do lots of silly, trite and misguided things. But that's exactly my experience of every bureaucracy or governmental body I've ever encountered as well. I don't really see a more formal structure of government eliminating, or even reducing, instances of foolishness. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

...oh yeah, and you're still 90 theses short of matching Luther :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

lol, well it was just based on them ;-) And we have a choice of having some governance or having none, which it's about at now WP:NOT#Wikipedia is an anarchy. And you'd be surprised at how many silly, trite and misguided things they do... Karmafist 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, I agree with you ... it sounds radical, but a benign form of anarchy is what's called for. After all, the free market (evidenced by things like eBay) is a benign anarchy, kept benign by reputation management. Wikipedia has all the facets to be the same.

Right to fork

You have the right to fork if you think that Wikipedia has lost its way. -- Netoholic @ 03:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would fork, but unfortunately I don't have the technical expertise. Perhaps you could assist on letting me know what i'd need to do so. Karmafist 19:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

also forking is an unnecessary duplication of effort - this project has a lot of momentum and is on the right track - consitutional reform is no bad thing - we shouldn't all have to ship off to australia just because we don't agree... Karmafist's idea is to build consensus within this community - if the autocratic sorts want to change that, they can fork off. ElectricRay 09:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

... and forking would leave what's broken here still broken. Walking away and starting over isn't helpful to anyone, at this point. As it happens, I do have the technical expertise, but really hope it never comes to that.

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't endorse this

I don't think it covers all the bases. A bicameral legislature is good, but it also needs an elected leader. Obviously Jimbo as the dictator isn't going to work forever. We need an elected leader. And the leader should be the one to appoint members to the judiciary, but only with approval of the legislature. You see where I'm going with this; it's basically a copy of real democratic systems. If things do proceed along these lines then Wikipedia could become the first transnational government. How neat would that be? --Cyde Weys 04:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not have a Soviet system instead? There could be the party members "Sysops," the politburo "Bureaucrats," and the Great Peoples Leader "Jimbo Wales"! When Jimbo steps down, the Politburo can choose the new Leader of Wikipedia.--Colle 01:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being ironic, right Colle? The whole point of this community is that it has got this far without an effective leader. Behaviour by what were once passive owners and admins is becoming progressively more autocractic - trying to assert leadership - and this has led to this unrest - so I don't understand how exagerrating the current structure (by making a formal leader, etc) can do anything but make the situation worse. It isn't the process by which we come by a leader (fair or foul) which creates the problem, but the substitution for individual judgment over collective judgment. I think, therefore, we need to be more imaginative than that - I have sketched out the germ of an idea below. ElectricRay 10:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if there is an elected leader or not; it is not specified in the manifesto here. But the idea of any individual with absolute veto power is strange, but it's what we have at the moment. I think that's one of the main comments of the manifesto. jnothman ^talk 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, what it boils down to is Jimbo (through the WMF) owns the servers; therefore, ultimately he can do whatever the hell he wants with them. That doesn't mean we have to like it. Kurt Weber 18:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts from Electric Ray

Karmafist, I greatly respect what you are trying to do here - I think your concern is spot on; I would, however, like to put down my thoughts on the manifestation of the manifesto (as you know, you and I occupy markedly different spots on the political compass (I'm squarely in the bottom right corner) - which might explain my divergent approach to the issue):

• I believe that we are all equal under the policies and guidelines set by the community - I would qualify this: community members are not all equal, are not treated equally by the community, and shouldn't expect to be (a vandal shouldn't expect to be treated the same way as a long-standing and uncontroversial editor) - but the basis for this inequality of treatment should be determined by the community as a whole - in exactly the same way that content of the encyclopaedia is - and not by some small subset of it who happen to claim legal ownership over certain assets without which the community couldn't function (currently, control stems from ownership and maintenance of servers: but what is the irreplaceable part of this project: a few servers in Florida, or the immense intellectual capital, donated for free, by every one of its members?). This is possible through the institution of a reputation management system (such as that used by eBay or Amazon.com). Over time we'll know the genuinely good editors, because they'll attract millions of little votes (the Barnstar concept - a very few large votes - is a poorly conceived version of this).
• Bicameral Legislature - Wikipedia is a perfect example of a coherent intellectual system which has grown up - literally, evolved - out of the autonomous, (for all intents) random and self-interested actions of a very large number of individuals, acting (largely) without guidance or regulation. The very significance of Wikipedia is that it shows that a community is able to run itself without delegating matters of general importance to a smaller subset of its members. I think instituting a bi-cameral legislature (or any similar institution) is exactly the wrong direction to head in - as with Parliamentary Democracy, no individual representative, no matter how well intentioned, can possibly understand and represent fairly and accurately the entire aggregated view of a wider consituency, so any representative system for determining these views is bound to fail, and disenfranchise people at the fringes of the community whose voices are then not heard. These people become vandals in Wikipedia. The current admin controversy, and the departure of good editors, is evidence that that layer of "representative government" which we already have, is the problem itself, not any sort of solution.
• Committee Hierarchy - The construction of a system of appellate committees, no matter how well intentioned, will also be necessarily detrimental to Wikipedia, for the same reasons. Any "committee" is a problem; creating a hierarchy of committees only intensifies the problem.
• all people who wish to assist the Encyclopedia are free to do so as long as they respect others and understand that when anything conflicts with the accuracy and maintenance of the Encyclopedia, that the Encyclopedia must come first - this begs the question that questions of accuracy are clear cut: in almost all cases of dispute, they're absolutely not. This is the problem with the "neutral point of view" - it sounds like a nice idea but there is no such thing. No one has a neutral point of view. Again, Wikipedia is the perfect example that millions of different viewpoints can create a coherent whole without the need for any overarching control. Rejection of the requirement to maintain the unattainable - a neutral point of view - allows instead systemic biases to be stated, unconscious ones to be identified; alternative "interpretations" of the same set of facts to be presented. This is not a weakness, it's a strength. Wikipedia is not Britiannica. It shouldn't aspire to be. We shouldn't worry that one needs to read Wikipedia with a generally skeptical mind. That's an extremely good thing to do. A prudent individual reads all information with that frame of mind.

Wikipedia needs to be shaken up; there needs to be a proletarian revolution, but just as in Communist russia the revolution will fail if all it achieves is substituting a more complex hierarchy in place of an existing one.

Here's to you, anyhow, in the spirit of sticking it to The Man. --ElectricRay 00:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One big problem: We did have guidance. Jimbo and Larry Sanger were very hands-on in the early days of Wikipedia, and I can still remember Jimbo and members of the board actively involving themselves in the community as late as 2004. The arbitration committee was established by Jimbo as his representative on Wikipedia to resolve disputes between users. All major policies have to be approved by Jimbo (such as the WP:3RR was; semi-protection also received "royal assent"). Jimbo only went really hands-off last year, and if I wanted to commit the fallacy of assuming correlation implies causation, I'd suggest one could blame the recent scandals on his absence. Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It seems like you're saying Jimbo does this stuff because he's out of touch with the community. The less of his "guidance", the better. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 13:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what language I speak, but it sounds like something you don't understand. That's a total non sequitur; I can't see any logical progression from "Jimbo used to be involved in the community but reduced his involvement to nearly nil last year" to "Jimbo is out of date and shouldn't interfere at all in the community". Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you said "one could blame the recent scandals on his absence". Since he's had a part in some scandals, shouldn't we blame his mishandling on his absence as well? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 14:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand how you come to that conclusion from what I said. You said "It seems like you're saying Jimbo does this stuff because he's out of touch with the community." I never said that. End of story. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. My view on this, at any rate, is that Jimbo's style of guidance only works when he has a small number of people who agree with him. He still has the board and the Arbitration Committee, but beyond that he hasn't scaled with the community at all. Unless he makes an essential paradigm shift, his guidance can only become less useful. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 15:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(I shifted back the indent; sorry if you didn't like it.) I don't think so. Most people only care about the encyclopedia, not about the politicking that goes on behind the scenes. And if nobody cares about the recent events (which were really textbook-definition unencyclopedic), then either Jimbo's done such a hopeless job nobody expects any better, or nobody sees anything to get riled up about. If you think Jimbo needs to change how he looks at things, tell him. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. That would be smart. When people are posting that questioning "the Founder" is unacceptable, and those people have and are prepared to use tools that can see you blocked from the site indefinitely, with appeal only to the person you criticised in the first place, that really, really wouldn't be wise. Grace Note 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Strawman. Who said questioning Jimbo is unacceptable? Who said they would exercise their power to block people who question him? This such a textbook definition of a strawman. Johnleemk | Talk 06:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Legislature:Quick and Easy

The legislature idea may seem like a huge bureaucracy waiting to happen, but it doesn't have to be. Ultimately, the lower house would be like an AFD discussion free to all, except someone would propose either a new policy or a modification to a policy, rather than deletion of an article. People would give their votes and reasoning, until either consensus is reached to end the debate(cloture) or a certain time period. The upper house would be the same thing, except with people elected by everybody. Karmafist 01:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. But what would prevent the different levels of Arbitration Committees from becoming big bureaucracies? How would arbitrators be chosen? Would they be appointed? If so, by whom? Would they be elected? Either option has bad possible results? zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Equality Isn't Enemies With Meritocracy

One of the biggest problems with Communism was a lack of incentive to do anything. I mean, if you own as much as the other guy, regardless of what you do, why should you do any more than him? If anything, you should do less. That thinking created a kind of entropy that ultimately destroyed most Communist states.

However, while Egalitarianism at first glance may seem the same, it isn't, and we only need to look to the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence for the quote we need to understand this concept...

All Men Are Created Equal

With emphasis on created. When we start out in life, we all have a base set of rights and responsibilities that are given to us per our unwritten agreement to live in society, such as a right to an education, a right to speak your mind,a right to vote, a right to equal process under the law, a right to be free from worrying if someone's going to hurt you, and so on.

Granted, those aren't doled out equally everywhere, but no matter where you go, people try to bring those "basic rights" up to an acceptable level.

That's what I was talking about in this, not that everybody should be at "Jimbo Level", on the contrary. Many people contribute far more than others, the average edit total for the 900,000+ Wikipedians is probably around the neighborhood of 10, and if one of them said they knew as much about this place as I do, i'd be slightly insulted.

However, just because they don't have the privledge of the expertise that comes with 11,000+ edits, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights. Meritocracy and Egalitarianism can exist in harmony, if we understand that the former is in regards to privledges, and the latter is in regards to basic, "can't live without them" rights. Karmafist 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

All men (i.e., people) are not created equal, but clearly they should be given equal opportunity to become equal. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:03, Feb. 14, 2006

Bingo. Karmafist 01:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be given as equal an opportunity as is practical without stepping on the rights of others, but they should not be forced to BE equal, because they are not. Some men are better at things (by any measure worth naming) than others. Giving vandals and trolls equal voice with editors who have created multiple featured articles, or with donors who have given thousands of dollars to the foundation, is forcing the unequal to BE equal, and thus is fundamentally a bad idea. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why efforts to promote "equal opportunity" (basic human rights) are a good thing, and efforts to promote "equal outcome" (welfare state) are a bad thing. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:40, Feb. 16, 2006

I don't understand the obsession with abstract moral absolutes, like "equality, liberty, fairness" etc. As soon as you start saying "ought", or "should", you're sneakily imposing your own value judgment, because there is no basis on which you can say one or other (or any) of these concepts has any better legitimacy (or any legitimacy) than any of the others. You can't derive an ought from an is. All men (and women) are created. After that, they just are. They're not equal, they don't want to be equal, they have no particular entitlements or rights, they all just get on in the way thay seems best to them. Some do it better than others. ElectricRay 22:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why I think this is impractical

I'll analyse this bit by bit. The first two sentences are undebatable, IMO. Anyone disagreeing with them shouldn't be here. The second presumes equality before the law, which is really difficult to implement when some of our editors and active administrators are members of Wikimedia Foundation Board. You can't block these people from an encyclopedia hosted on their servers. You can't desysop them using software running on their servers. I'll ignore the fourth sentence because it presumes there's something wrong with understanding this simple fact. The fifth sentence is undebatable, as is the sixth (although the insinuation that there's some sort of organised jackbooted conspiracy to censor people is utterly ridiculous). The seventh sentence resembles the Fallacy of many questions, in that it equates the Wikipedia community with the Wikipedia encyclopedia. The latter is irrevocably free; nobody can control it. The former certainly is controllable (subject of course, to people leaving or forking).

Now let's look at the propositions involved. The proposal of a formal legislative body is ridiculous and has obviously not been thought out well. As things stand, anyone can propose a policy, and anyone can support it. There already is a "lower house", without the need for a formal establishment, which will naturally carry bureaucratic red tape (such as the quorum). The elected "upper house" serves no point, IMO; it's already very hard to make changes to policy, short of a decree from Jimbo. Furthermore, all this would entail rewriting WP:NOT to excise the portions relating to democracy and bureaucracy.

The second proposition has its heart in the right place, but not its head. The fact is that there are always exceptions. Rule of law works in the real world because the real world is a democracy. Wikipedia is not one, and if it becomes one, it will be difficult to maintain the democratic system (believe me; I've been involved in online communities one way or another for almost eight years, and I've never seen a single democratic establishment that didn't fail). Even in the real world, often the law is circumvented; take the comparable cases of Clive Ponting and Sarah Tisdall as an example. (Hehe, law class is actually useful on Wikipedia!) It's one thing to proclaim process is important; that is an attitude nobody should outright discount; but it's another thing to proclaim your slavery to process. A policy that works 99.9% of the time can rarely be amended to work 100% of the time, and it can't be repealed either. So what to do?

The third proposition presumes the Wikipedia community should be fair. By and large, it is and should be. But there is no such thing as justice on Wikipedia. If the Board running the servers hates you, it can just block you from accessing the servers (an extreme and unpleasant case, but nevertheless a very possible and real one). The Arbcom exists not to mete out justice, but to avoid further harm to the community and/or the encyclopedia. As such, it is not judicial, and has no comparable counterpart in the real world, except possibly the police.

Proposition four should not be disregarded outright, but it has to be considered carefully. I have no opinion on this proposal, except for the clause pertaining to the appellate function -- if these committees are minor, why should people appeal to them? Why not to the major body -- the Arbcom -- itself, or to the Board?

I don't see anything in proposition five to be debated; it's basic common sense.

And now, here comes the shocker (yes, I can hear the groans from the audience already): Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It's an encyclopedia. Any trappings of process and bureaucracy it has exist to further the encyclopedia, not the community. It is of course true that the community and encyclopedia often have the same interests at heart, but when the two conflict, the encyclopedia has to come first. This proposal essentially gives custody of the encyclopedia to the community. Its author, Karmafist, has complained before that Wikipedia is an ochlocracy. Well, what does this manifesto do to change this? It only formalises the statement that Wikipedia is an ochlocracy. Right now we have entrusted the necessary and menial duties necessary to promote the welfare of the encyclopedia that we cannot perform to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Board has not derelicted its duty, nor is there any indication that it should be relieved of these duties.

However, it is the most unfortunate truth that nothing enshrined in this manifesto can be held binding without cutting the Wikimedia Foundation out of the picture. This is a very unpalatable statement to accept, but it's nevertheless the truth. If the Foundation retains custody of the servers hosting our encyclopedia, and the information it stores, it will effectively have us by the throat. Any powers held by the proposed legislature or the arbcom will be delegated to them from the Foundation; it will not be directly vested in them. The Foundation will also have the final say in whatever policies are implemented, repealed or amended (as it already does). If you want to throw off the shackles of Wikimedia tyranny, this proposal will do nothing to further this goal (I am presuming that this is the goal because this manifesto implies a displeasure with "certain people (who) have control over it (Wikipedia)"). And if you consider seriously the possibility of cutting the Wikimedia Foundation out, I have already ennumerated the practical difficulties of doing so elsewhere: who will run and administrate the servers? Who will purchase and maintain them? Who will handle the public relations of Wikipedia? And so forth. The functions performed by the Wikimedia Foundation are indispensable; dispensing with the Foundation will only result in handing those functions (and the power that they entail) to another body.

This manifesto also assumes that it is desirable for an online encyclopedia to be administrated in line with the principles of democracy. However, this is a thoroughly unworkable concept. No organisation operates without some form of hierarchy; while the volunteers on the ground are often unorganised (or have a minimum of organisation), a tight ship is run by a small number of people at the top. Any organisation run entirely democratically -- with direct accountability from its leaders to its rank and file -- exists only because it has yet to reach the stage when it is a threat to itself. Even in a company, a CEO is accountable to the Board of Directors, not the workers he administrates. The presumption that Wikipedia should be run like a government is as ridiculous as the presumption that any organisation (the Red Cross? The publishing company of Encyclopaedia Britannica?) should be run like a government.

Now, I understand why this isn't exactly what people want. It conflicts with our fetishism for democracy, and the feeling that this just isn't right. But the belief that the Foundation is going to suppress us (or already has done so) is simply unfounded. Tell me, when was the last time the Foundation or a member of its Board stepped in to tackle a content dispute? I can't recall. Probably it was the autofellatio ruckus, or the dreadful war over what Gdansk should be called (sigh...the days when most of our disputes were still relevant to the encyclopedia). Some may see Jimbo's interference with the userbox dispute as unwarranted or unfair. Well, whoever said it had to be fair or warranted? The important question is -- was it wrong? Say what you like, but there's no question Carnildo had to be desysoped. And while you can argue that Jimbo probably shouldn't have desysoped Carbonite, El C, BorgHunter or Karmafist, the fact is that wheel warring has been plaguing us for quite some time now. If Jimbo hadn't stepped in, another wheel war would probably have erupted eventually. And then another. And so on. Did Jimbo make the wrong call in some cases? Yes. He's human. He makes mistakes. But was the aggregate effect of his actions negative? No.

In the real world, people are innocent before they are proven guilty. But on Wikipedia, you're innocent unless the Board considers you guilty. Again, this is unpalatable for many. But nevertheless, this pre-emptive approach has worked for us ever since Wikipedia was founded (when Jimbo and Larry Sanger were large and in charge) because of how rarely it has been used. The Board and Jimbo have consistently erred on the side of caution before stepping into a dispute -- often stepping in too late rather than too early. Furthermore, once action was taken, it could and can be reversed as necessary -- as the arbcom's restoration of adminship to most of those desysoped has shown. (Remember, the arbcom acts as Jimbo's delegate.)

This manifesto is written in good will and faith; no doubt. It means well. It has its heart in the right place. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for its head. Numerous problems in this manifesto render it unworkable without sacrificing its objectives. At the same time, it appears to be predicated on the assumption that the Foundation cannot be trusted. Without evidence to corroborate this assumption, however, I can find no problem that this manifesto will address. Johnleemk | Talk 10:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. In the vacuum of any positive statement of the organizational principles underlying Wikipedia, we treat it as a political organization. It isn't. Up to now, it hasn't mattered and we have been left to our conceit. Now – with political spats happening right, left and centre – the attempts at changing the system are focused on political solutions. These won't provide the changes you desire: the only way to change the organization is from the top, down. John mentions two alternative models: the non-governmental organization and the publisher. An NGO works under a constitution, and a publisher works under an editor-in-chief. Perhaps these offer better avenues to explore? User:Noisy | Talk 15:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

project space might need this, but the encyclopedia does not

Current project space is a mess. The encyclopedia itself, however, is very segmented, and typically only has a very small number of people working on any one page at once.

Dragging control on top of an already grotesquely overloaded, misdesigned and unscalable project space is probably the Wrong Thing. It might be better to just delete project namespace entirely instead. Kim Bruning 11:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

+ irc discussion (I'm occaisionally less polite on irc, so take with a grain of sugar :-)

kim_register check the damn numbers
kim_register http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png
kim_register check this histogram
kim_register most users
kim_register are not editing
kim_register most pages
kim_register most of the time
kim_register this is taken from data from over 950 000 pages
kim_register it is not a sample, thus no sampling error
kim_register Now this is why wikipedia is still working
kim_register it is running DESPITE the rules, and DESPITE the project namespace
kim_register not because of it

Kim Bruning 11:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mostly right. The problem is that the posturing bullies do occasionally interfere with the encyclopaedia. If they'd promise not to, we'd probably be okay. A few edit wars, a few people with feathers ruffled because someone calls them a dickhead, a couple of lads upset because Britannica doesn't have articles about their local primary school but we do; the problems would be relatively few. Grace Note 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, perhaps another point should be added --- "If something is alright, there's no need to over obsess over it." or something like that. I agree that the vast majority of the project is fine, it's just the top of the pyramid, that could spill over to that part eventually. I mean, Kelly Martin's RFC only had around 200 people, while there are over 900,000 Wikipedians. Karmafist 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no pyramid. The graph would have a different shape if there was. That's what surprised me at first. Kim Bruning 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a more convenient clickety link to the graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct_histo.png Kim Bruning 02:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Would you be so kind as to regraph that data on a log-log graph Or let me know (on my talk page, prefereably) how to get at that data? t would be interesting to get a fit to the data; there have been recet scientific studies of similar things for slashdot postings, citations of physics articles, and interlinking of pages in the google cache. (there were three distinct papers). It would be interesting to see the analog for WP editing. linas 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See long tail for lots more on this interesting phenomenon, as this is a classic example of it, as are the other items you cite. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not really a long tail in this case, as there's only a couple of hundred items in that tail (out of 950000), so it's best to just call those pathological cases. Kim Bruning 11:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused, maybe it's irrelevant but I am thinking about the other end... most articles are only edited by a few people. That seems tailish... ++Lar: t/c 12:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah! true... the graph isn't drawn the same way. Fair dinkum. Kim Bruning 13:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

900,000 Wikipedians: Over 100,000 are blocked vandal accounts, by the way. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:46, Feb. 16, 2006

Over 100,000 are blocked vandal accounts doesn't mean they aren't still there...Similiar to our country's prison population, hrm? Karmafist 06:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but if we are trying to take account of people who edit the occassional article, and have no interest in the perpetual flamewar that is the project space, it hardly seems sensible to include vandals Cynical 08:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Rehabilitation

This is one thing that Wikipedia doesn't do well -- rehabilitating vandals. Vandals are ultimately little more than a waste of time now, but when they see that even they can make a positive contribution, I think they'll get hooked to that compared to having their edits reverted in a few seconds and having Curps auto-block them. Another thing, I have no doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation will send out a press release saying they've just gotten their "one millionth user", per that figure. If the cabal uses that figure, we should hold them to it until they decide to just delete those user pages and deduct that from their totals. Karmafist 16:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Can we not do both? I support Karmafist's general aims, which seem to me to be not much more than to drain some of the poison, but not his solutions. I don't mind talking about either or both. Grace Note 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• WAS 4.250 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) I see this manifesto as some sort of misunderstanding. Which kind of misunderstanding, I do not know. Perhaps confusing meatspace with cyberspace? Perhaps not understanding the nature of the copyright license all contributions are made under (anyone can fork ALL of wikipedia at any time)? Perhaps not realizing the laws that govern the meatspace componets of Wikipedia and the foundation that ownes the hardware involved and raises the funds that pay the bills. Anyone who wants a REAL say can supply real world assistance - like say the US State Department funding an expert on the Arabic language to help assist the Arabic version of Wikipedia because both the US government and Wikipedia board members see a common interest in providing uncensored information to the Arabic world. WAS 4.250 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The 4th Point

I thought perhaps we could change that point to have instead of "mini-arbcoms" just to have rfcs be there to gain consensus for decisions (similiar to Radiant's admin poll) which people could either accept or go to the arbcom with for an appeal. What do you think? Karmafist 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot Legislate your way to an answer

I applaud the spirit but I just don't see a bicameral (or monocameral or tricameral or anycameral) legislature working. This is a project that happens to have a community, not a community that happens to be doing a project. If there is to be a -ocracy of any sort, let it be a meritocracy, or a donatocracy. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That is seeming to be a sticking point, but it's not a big deal -- it's modeled after two things we already have -- "discussion" pages like afd, rfc, rfb, mfd, etc.(that's the lower house) and the arbcom(that's the upper house). I'm just saying that instead of deletions or granting sysops, the focus is on policies and guidelines instead, and the two work in concert. Karmafist 02:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because the power to delete things, and ban users, and so forth all flows from the power to grant sysophood, and that power in turn flows from the board. That the board does not participate in the choosing of, and the day to day operations of the 'crats who weigh consensus in picking sysops does not mean it has ceded that power to the majority, it means it chooses not to exercise it for the sake of convenience and because it trusts its delegation. A legistature carries the connotation of force of law in its own right. But Jimbo and the board are the law, not the mob of us. If this were worded to say that there ought to be a RfP (request for Process) committee, which would propose and approve process, with the board holding veto, that would be different, perhaps. But perhaps not even then. Johnleemk has said it all more cogently than I just did (if not more consisely! (zing!)). Wikipedia, like all material things, runs on gold, and he who has the gold, makes the rules. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Fifth point

I'm afraid I can only support the fifth point. The first four just seem hideously bureaucratic in nature and appeal, and I have a real aversion to having things written down too clearly. I think the fifth principle is the one that matters most and should suffice in almost all situations. I don't think you are going to legislate to cover all eventualities.

Point one is far too unwieldy and unnecessary, and it scares me what a block to wikipedia it could become as the community grows. I also think two house systems are unworkable when codified in such a way. At the end of the day, I also have to state that I don't think the solution you are presenting is to any problem that currently exists on wikipedia.

Point two is also unworkable if we allow IAR. If we get rid of IAR then we turn wikipedia into a place where people argue even more over rules interpretation and we tie good people up on deciding who is right in a given situation. I think there should instead be greater self control, AGF, CIV and NPA should be more than enough to cover any situation. Perhaps we need a page on unilateral action, although there is a section of WP:NOT that covers that. People need to remember the first recourse is not to undo actions but to discuss the action first off.

Point three is somewhat inane to me; it seems to codify far too heavily, and is also impractical. What is the arbcoms jurisdiction and how does it enforce it? Again to me, it would just tie up more people doing work which is at some level impossible. Any determined person can very easily ignore arb-com. I would also hate wikipedia to develop to the point where if someone really was becoming a problem we had to have about sixty straw polls on whether to block or give them a severe ticking off. I think if you codify too far you lose the flexibility that is currently inherent in wikipedia. Yes the system as it stands has flaws, but what system doesn't?

Point four again creates a tier of bureacracy that to me seems unnecessary, for reasons already cited above. Apologies to rain on your parade, Steve block talk 09:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No Rain At All, Actually an Idea

I was wondering if maybe I could ask if people who agree with part of it(such as yourself), can just sign under part of it -- do you think that could be a good idea? Perhaps there could be a graph such as this

Agreement Towards Sections of Karmafist's Manifesto

User	1	2	3	4	5
Rick Block					x
Karmafist	x	x	x	x	x
Whoever	x		x	x

And so on... Karmafist 03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm. No? Kim Bruning 12:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a rather good idea. --Thorri 14:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. "Just make stuff up and cross your fingers" is probably not the best way to run things ;-) Kim Bruning 20:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential Breakthrough

[1] My hope is renewed. Stay tuned. Karmafist 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Point 4

I assume you mean when people still disagree after consensus is found on RFC, they should appeal to ArbCom. I'm not sure why those who agree with it would with to appeal the decision with the ArbCom. ;-) 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Point 2

An understanding that once these policies and guidelines are agreed upon by the community, that they must be followed until changed by the community.

This will only increase people's obsession with policy and its precise wording, which, because this wording will never be fully encompassing and completely unambiguous, will lead to needless and drawn-out disputes, which is contrary to Point 5. Only arbcom should obsess over policy wording as it becomes necessary for them to handle disputes. At the community-level, people should just use their best judgment, and ask for outside opinions (not votes, but rationale) to assist in resolving disputes without involving arbcom or bringing down the encyclopedia. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-19 02:40