Wikipedia talk:Governance review

Reasonable

As long as this doesn't turn into a "get rid of ArbCom" thing or something like that, this seems like a pretty reasonable proposal. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are free to propose getting rid of ArbCom if they want (I won't support such a proposal unless it replaces ArbCom with something to do the same job, the job needs doing). --Tango (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting the results wished for at Wikipedia:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia so trying it again? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think this is actually better. The discussion at the latter page turned into "meh, it doesn't really matter if Jimbo appoints arbs". This is wider, and a validly different discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The proposed modifications to Jimbo's role in arbitration was supposed to be a small, non-controversial change, to illicit opinions about his role and tidy up some of the current arrangement. The message seems to have been "this is the least worrying part of his role, no need to change that, but there are other aspects......." I think this proposal will look further beyond just the role of Jimbo as well, and the proposers of the 'role of jimbo' rfc aren't the same as here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was a total trainwreck from start to finish. At least this proposal is starting out on the right foot, rather than presenting for immediate voting a "carefully crafted" proposal that was actually unintelligible in places, and incomprehensible in others. This proposal, if it is followed, at least demonstrates an understanding of how policy is made on enwiki. Happy‑melon 12:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll take that in the shorts melon :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melon, more than a third found it quite intelligible; yet more agreed that further discussion is necessary concerning Mr Wales's powers. You use rather strong language (e.g., "total trainwreck"), as though you're personally offended; please specify on my talk page or elsewhere just which parts you felt were "unintelligible", and which parts you felt were "incomprehensible", and I'll take you through them one by one. Tony (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded elsewhere. Happy‑melon 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing to do with that proposal and opposed it (or possibly was neutral, I don't remember exactly where I put my vote). This is a review, that was a vote on a specific (flawed) proposal. --Tango (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

Do we use the project page, the discussion page, or a subpage for what is likely to be very many kB of discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion about the process goes on this talk page, discussion about various proposals goes on Wikipedia:Governance review/Proposals. More subpages will be created as the need arises (I don't know if that will be necessary before we move on phase two or not, but it certainly will be then - it might be before if the first subpage gets too long). --Tango (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo

Is there any reason to take away Jimbo's control (as it currently stands) of Wikipedia? Are there any incidences where he's "abused" his power? I'm not aware of any. I'd suggest that without examples of such, not to fix what isn't broken. --Rebroad (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he has ever abused his power, but there are instances where significant numbers of people think he has misused his power. I'm reluctant to get into specifics because everyone has different ideas about which things that Jimmy has done were wrong. Every time Jimbo does something it seems to cause a controversy and it's a bigger controversy each time. Even if everything Jimmy does really is best for the project (as I'm certain he thinks it is) the harm from the controversy it causes probably outweighs the gain in some cases. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tango's preference for "misuse" might be as close as we can get. To repeat what I wrote on the previous pages, there are signs of a disconnect between Jimmy Wales & the Wikipedia community. He either makes decisions without knowing all of the facts (& thus his decisions come across as ill-informed) or he takes actions without being up-to-date about what Wikipedia's practices are at the present moment, & ends up making things worse. (Policy as written is always behind policy as implemented, & sometimes both are entirely wrong & need fixing.) Either he needs to be more involved -- or step back into a ceremonial role. The choice is up to him, but he needs to make the choice. -- llywrch (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking action, or making statements, without all the facts is one of the biggest problems. That unfortunate habit made the Essjay scandal worse than it needed to be, for example. --Tango (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current drama over Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development is a good example. Jimbo endorsed it despite the fact that anyone that keeps an eye on community feeling could have told him it was only going to create drama. That means he either doesn't understand community feeling or he didn't understand what it was he was endorsing. --Tango (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

This looks rather odd to me. The page refers to an "initial discussion". However, if you look at that page, you'll find it's a follow-up to another page. On that page, User:Giano/The future, if you look through it, you'll see that the position that attracted the most consensus among those responding was my own, that we need an effective system for resolving content disputes: 17 supporting, none aginst, 1 abstention. Yet this has mysteriously disappeared in the subsequent stages during my absence from these pages. Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should add it to the discussion Peter? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The initial discussion was split over two pages, one for brainstorming and then one for drawing conclusions from that, it was all one discussion though. The point of that discussion was simple: to determine if we needed to have a larger discussion. The conclusion was that we did. We didn't try and reach a conclusion on what the future should hold, just about what we need to discuss. Now is the time to start serious discussion about different ideas, and you should add your proposal to the proposals page. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no specific proposal. I was merely raising an issue. Virtually everyone agreed the issue was important, but it seems to have disappeared from the list of topics by the time we reach the governance page. Peter jackson (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would fall under "additional governance systems". I intentionally left the questions very board rather than thinking that I knew precisely what we needed to determine. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some solutions might. If ArbCom counts as governance, then giving them or a similar body powers over content would count too. But that might not be the only possible solution to the problem. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to interpret the questions very broadly at this stage in the process. Anything about how decisions are made is fair game to be discussed. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikimedia perspective

Since, as mentioned elsewhere, this was brought to the attention of Sue Gardner and myself, I'll offer a general comment on this discussion vis-a-vis the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not commenting on any specific proposals at the moment, and any comment I did make about them would be my own personal views.

Both as a founder and as an enduring, active participant in project governance, Jimbo has built up a degree of authority on the English Wikipedia. This is sometimes reflected in formal, official functions and at other times in a more traditional and informal way. In its origins, this predates the existence of the Wikimedia Foundation and is generally independent of it. The foundation usually does not get involved in project governance, and it's my understanding that the project communities prefer it that way as well. So Jimbo's founder/traditional role is not that of a Wikimedia board member, even though he also happens to be on the board.

The consequence is that Wikimedia board or staff members might participate as individuals who are part of the project community, but on a personal basis. In an official capacity, any involvement would be purely to facilitate. Occasionally it seems like some people think the Wikimedia Foundation should decide governance issues or enforce them. Unless it's something that's specifically a matter of Wikimedia policy (implementing the CC-BY-SA licensing after having consulted the projects on the issue, for example), that's not likely to happen. --Michael Snow (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I'm honestly unclear what the point of your statement is. Am I correct if I paraphrase what you wrote as the following? "The WMF board & staff are leaving the job of running the English Wikipedia to Jimmy Wales, & don't want to get involved. No one should interpret the presence of individual members of the WMF to the contrary." -- llywrch (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We were asked to comment, so I did. That's all the point there is, really, although I tried to touch on some of the points that seem to come up regularly. I think your paraphrase is a bit slanted, honestly. We are leaving the governance of the English Wikipedia, like all other Wikimedia projects, to its community. To the extent that it's about the job of running it (why that approach? To decide who to hire? Who to blame for everything? Who to follow?), it would seem that's also a community issue. I wonder if it wouldn't be more helpful to think about ways to help run it, and to take on responsibilities to that end. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get that - other language wikis are still under the wmf's control, but manage without Jimbo. His 'historic' role here is independent of the board? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the last part, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "under the wmf's control" in the first part. The Wikimedia Foundation does not control the other projects any more than it does the English Wikipedia. --Michael Snow (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you felt my paraphrase was "a bit slanted". I'm not trying to trip you up: I honestly didn't understand what you wanted to say, beneath all of those qualifications. (And in my defense, in the paragraph where you mention "communities" you did refer to Jimmy Wales twice. Which is why I misunderstood you -- & sought a clarification.) So a corrected paraphrase of what you were trying to say would be The WMF board & staff are leaving the job of running the English Wikipedia to its community, & don't want to get involved. And historically speaking, Jimmy Wales has had a major influence in how the community worked. No one should interpret the presence of individual members of the WMF as contradicting that." -- llywrch (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm as much to blame as you for any misunderstanding and I'm happy to clarify. I just didn't feel like I could adopt that paraphrase as something I would say. I don't mind the new paraphrase, I might just elaborate that not wanting to get involved (in the sense of exerting authority) is related to the understanding that we're also not wanted in that sense. --Michael Snow (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Michael. Could we get one further piece of clarification (which may be implicit in what you've said, but would be better made explicit)? Can you confirm that the WMF will not overrule the community's decision following this discussion (as long as we acknowledge that the WMF still has sovereignty over those issues it currently has sovereignty over)? If you can't confirm that then we need to have a discussion with you about what we can and can't do before there is any point continuing this discussion. --Tango (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't interfere with issues that are fundamental Wikimedia policies, I expect the foundation would not overrule a community decision. I don't think there's much history of the foundation doing that, but if it's reassuring for me to say so, that's fine. From my experience, it's probably more plausible that in the absence of a clear decision, partisans for a particular course might appeal to the foundation to carry out their preferred approach, thus tipping the scales as it were. Hence I tried to indicate that this is also not something I anticipate the foundation doing. --Michael Snow (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Some people have expressed concerns that this whole process is pointless because "Wikipedia is the WMF's project" and we don't get to make these decisions. It's good to get that properly cleared up. --Tango (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, unless we actively, as a project, violate wmf:Policies, it is a situation of salutary neglect? MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What incident has lead to this

This seems completely unnecessary in my mind. Don't fix it unless it's broke. Is it broke - examples? Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No single incident has lead to this. Pretty much every time Jimbo does anything it causes significant controversy, that itself suggests something needs to be done, even if Jimbo is doing the right things. Also, the fact that it is very difficult to get any major policy changes through due to the need for a consensus which is impossible to achieve with such a large number of interested people suggests something needs to be done. I put forward a proposal of leaving everything as it is to ensure that view does get the discussion it deserves, so please give your arguments in favour of that view on the proposals page. --Tango (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His role as "benevolent dictator for life" is itself controversial, but I have no problem with it. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the drama that this discussion is causing. There should be someone with ultimate authority, and Jimbo has done a fine job overall so far. I don't expect him to suddenly go bonkers and change. Therefore, I don't see that any changes should be made. If he makes waves from time to time, that's a good thing in my eyes. Wikipedia and other projects need occasional shakeups as long as they come from someone who has the best interests of the Foundation in mind. I will oppose any changes to the status quo regarding Jimbo and his role--either expanding it or limiting it. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 11:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I see expressed above are expressions of the god-mentality: there's gotta be someone above me to worship, to control, to keep my life in order, to protect me. We need to grow out of this. The English WP is the only one that has a god-king. Someone above wants to know why it's broken? Here's an example. Every December, the community elects arbitrators. But it's not a direct election; merely one to advise the god-king on whom to appoint. The god-king, critically, decides how many arbitrators he will appoint, after he knows the vote, not before. This is ripe for clandestine manipulation. No reasons are ever provided as to why four or six or seven candidates were appointed, rather than, say, five. This is not transparent, and is a denial of the electoral process. Tony (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started on the wrong foot

There seems an obsession here, and in other discussions, in focusing grievances and solutions on the actions and position of a single person. There is also an obsession with whom is perceived to have the power, how this power is derived and whom should have the power. Couple this with what I see as a declining level of good community (see the dramafest that is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development and any day on WP:AN or WP:AN/I) and it does not surprise me that much bogs down. The initial bent of this page simply focuses on fixing these perceived issues without any clear relation as to how this improves the site. That we need to do something is clear (Drini's comments here are very worth reading) but if the discussion begins with a particular viewpoint, that view will color all subsequent discussion. This page has been created with what I see as the best of intentions, but not in a way that is going to achieve the goals sought. I think it preferable that a discussion on governance begins with what is of importance here:

Producing quality encyclopedic articles
Fostering a community and spirit that makes the site enjoyable and retains editors
Protecting the wider world (BLP issues)
Improving the site's reputation (vandalism and inaccuracy)
Whatever others see as important

If we start with the focus on what most people here see as important, rather than on the mechanisms people see necessary to achieve this, then we have a better chance of arriving at a good end point. If we begin with ".....Jimbo....power.....Arbcom.....election suffrage requirements...." then it is likely, as is often the case here, to be a polarizing discussion that does not achieve its goals. Perhaps try starting with "We want the English Wikipedia to be ......", pointing out where we fall short and people can then propose how we govern the site to close the gap.- Peripitus (Talk) 05:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is well put. I would love to see a 'We want the English Wikipedia to be...' page -- with interwiki and interlanguage links. +sj + 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility consensus! (only joking, but worth a look)

Thought you people might be interested in this too. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project for reforming committees and policies

People who watch this page should be interested in a new project page; I think your sensitivites and sensibilities would bring much to it.

The RfC on the Policy Council has been somewhat divisive; it has provoked the expression of passionate beliefs about the current state of Wikipedia and its future. Although there has been a good deal of conflict, I assume that everyone has made statements, endorsed or rejected them, in good faith.

In the process a broad spectrum of editors have expressed a variety of thoughtful comments. Like any RfC, that page is organized to call attention to the conflicts among us. I have created another page in an attempt to encourage people to work together - in the spirit of Wikipedia, to encourage people who hold different, conflicting, even contradictory views to be able to work together.

I know that the people nominated to the ACPD acted in good faith, but the RfC has made clear that there are many more people who share the same concern for the project, and who have good ideas. I created this page so that everyon could participate. I drew on some of the ideas generated by the members of the ACPD, as a start. I added a few of my own and I think that the questions on this page collectively provide space for people to discuss all of the concerns expressed here. I have provided a template so that editors can add questions or concerns, if they feel I missed something.

Please check out Wikipedia:Areas for Reform. If you bring to that page the same concern and thoughtfulness that has been expressed here, I believe we as a community can move forward.