A Council of Wikipedia (distinct from WikiProject Council) shall be created. The essay itself contains commentary as well as the proposal itself, so it is highly advised that all readers of this page read the essay in full before participating in the discussion. 08:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion here seems to be based on out-of-date information, and many of the problems have been addressed in an updated proposal here. Please discuss on this page, but based on the proposal over there. Several important changes have been made to the proposal over there:
The types of documents the Council can create, in particular policies and guidelines, is more precisely defined and limited.
In addition to an internal consensus within the Council, vote-count thresholds must also be met in order for a motion to become a legally valid document.
WikiProject membership merely adds two seats to the Council, but this does not make WikiProjects constituencies in and of themselves and does not permit them to nominate representatives.
Randomized constituencies have been created in order to avoid the problems of "virtual gerrymandering" arising from the old WikiProject system.
The Unaffiliated Candidates Constituency is no longer a constituency itself, but merely adds eight seats to the Council elected from the randomized constituencies.
Stringent WikiProject membership criteria have been established, ensuring that only the largest and best-organized may join.
WikiProject members shall be granted the power to bring motions to the floor of the Council.
Any support offices of the Council ("bureaucracy") may be removed if community consensus finds them to be unnecessary, redundant, or superfluous.
I'll accept marking this as failed. But nobody here seemed to read the updated proposal at all. User:Hut 8.5 mentioned that "WikiProjects will still choose members." No, they will determine consensus which must be countersigned by uninvolved administrators. Nobody has paid any attention to the changes, and I think the reason for this is that the old proposal's garbage was stuck in their head. I had updated the proposal, but to no avail as the hardline opposing editors did not even bother to read the charter. So their comments are definitely misguided.
This proposal will certainly be back, but in an updated form which will take into account all of the concerns of the posters here. I hope that by making the new proposal good from the start it will ensure a more positive image of this idea than "bureaucracy" and "WikiProject takeover." I know I have few supporters, but one's critics ultimately help one to improve. I will take into account the concerns of the Wikipedia community and, specifically, reduce the bureaucracy in this idea and eliminate the role of WikiProjects in this Council.
Even though this proposal has now failed, I do not view the idea of coordination on Wikipedia as being a complete failure. The lack thereof falls under this category. History shows that in areas without effective government - everywhere from the frontiers of massive empires at war to anarchist communes - order and civilization there are ultimately doomed to fail. While I do not defend this specific proposal any longer, we cannot keep ignoring the mistakes of the past in favor of our own whims. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined20:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again you're misreading my comment. Under the revised proposal certain Wikiprojects will send two members each to the council. That's what I'm objecting to. The process Wikiproject participants go through to select the representatives is irrelevant. Hut 8.521:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, please DON'T bring it back. There's no rule against making a dumb proposal, but there ARE rules against continuing to propose something the community has soundly and decisively rejected, as it can be disruptive. At this point, you've had two votes, one ending 1-to-18 against and one unanimously 0-to-8 against. The community has very clearly made its wishes known here, there's no serious reason to believe a third, fourth or fifth vote will change anything. For details, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and to an extent the essay WP:STICK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind23:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We can never tell exactly when a few pebbles become a pile but it should be obvious to every sensible observer that, as the project page states, Wikipedia is now enormous in size (it has "an amount of content equal to thousands of Britannica volumes, and more information than one could digest in an entire lifetime"). It was possible for ancient Athenian democracy to run its affairs the way it did, and giving us in the process the first example of truly participatory democracy, because the numbers were small enough. All the citizens could fit into a stadium and, there, everyone could hear the person who happened to be speaking. Someone once estimated the number of citizens at around ten thousand for this kind of democracy to function well. There are many more than that Wiki Editors - and that's counting only those who have taken the trouble to register a name and open a User Page. Then, there's the size of the "city" itself, the size of Wikipedia content. It has become truly gigantesque. We are at a point, and I realize that we are submitting here personal opinions, where the quality of Wikipedia will begin to suffer as quantity continues to "improve". If, that is, quality isn't suffering already, which I personally believe it is. People, and this goes especially for the kind of people a project like Wikipedia will attract, tend to be instinctively suspicious of moves towards centralisation of decision-making and the potential of authoritarianism but this project cannot grow nor function any more like an amoeba.-The Gnome (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing strikes me as a waste of energy on unproductive bureaucracy. That alone would not cause me to oppose, if editors want to have a council, its their time. What I strongly disagree with is giving the body the authority to make binding policy, while having the election process run through projects that many editors choose not to participate it, while simultaneously excluding a large portion of the most experienced and committed editors (admins) from hold positions on it. Also, the community review of policies created by the body is backwards, I could almost accept a system where the policy was in force for a month while a community discussion took place to establish consensus for it, but here, the discussion can't start for a month, and then consensus is needed to overturn? NO. Monty84520:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the binding policy of the Council, it will last a maximum of ninety days after being made effective before becoming null and void without possibility of renewal. This is, of course, excluding cases where community consensus is in favor of the policy being made permanent. Wer900talkessay on the definition of consensus21:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Monty. Not only is membership, to what would become a very powerful body, limited to Wikiprojects, but the most active and knowledgeable members of Wikiprojects are reasonably likely to also be administrators who are also excluded. This is fundamentally against the spirit of collegial collaboration on Wikipedia and I can't help feeling the exclusions are designed to attract a disruptive "anti-establishment" element who would be almost impossible to control were this proposal implemented. SpinningSpark20:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeh, I'm putting the comment into the oppose section, but it's more of a comment than a slappy oppose. There's some really good thinking behind this idea, and I can so totally understand where this is coming from. As it stands, it's not a brill idea for the reasons given above. But ... and this is a big BUT – there are ingredients in this which could be tweaked about and played with and used very well to cook up an alternative which could be extremely good. It would need a huge amount of real intelligent good-faith constructive discussion, among a lot of good Wikipedians, to turn inspiration into something good and functional. But I think there's the germ of something progressive in these thoughts, so don't be too disheartened. I personally don't like the idea of excluding admins altogether - how about making it half-and-half, or something? And how about making entry requirements much higher; no editor with less than (for example) 5000 non-bot edits, to make sure we're looking at really experienced people? And / or editors with no less than 40% of contributions to article space? Things like this could be thought out. Pesky (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I echo many of Pesky's thoughts on this matter, although I would perhaps go further to say that the core thinking (while well-intentioned) is probably irreconcilable with the "wiki" model. AGK[•]11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (note, came here due to RfCBot notification). There is no reason why WikiProjects should have more "authority" over the encyclopedia in any way. No comment on any specific projects listed here, but numerous projects in the past have actually been detrimental to the project, when they sought to impose walled-gardens, "in-house" style guides, etc. If there is an emergency, it should be dealt with at the Village Pump, ANI, or somewhere else that the whole community has input on. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the power of WikiProjects being opposed, I have created an unaffiliated constiutency where editors who are, well, unaffiliated with a WikiProject may go in order to stand for election. This constituency will send eight councillors to the proposed Council of Wikipedia. As far as Administrators and Bureaucrats are concerned, they are permitted to run for office but must resign those posts upon their successful election to the Council. The prohibition against ArbCom and MedCom members running remains in place. Wer900talkessay on the definition of consensus20:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hell no Frankly, one of the dumbest proposals to come floating down the stream in quite awhile. I don't even know where to start: blatant wikiproject power grab, bureaucratic nightmare, cesspool of potential drama, etc etc etc. And all for no real benefit to the project that isn't already better covered by other groups/procedures. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind01:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered the fact that there will be an Independent Editors Constituency with eight editors? I can increase it as much as seems reasonable. I don't see how the ArbCom covers any of what I am talking about. As for the "bureaucratic nightmare," look at Somalia. No bureaucratic nightmare, because the government there does not exist in the real world beyond the capital, only on paper in these regions. And they're doing fine right now. The very existence of a body to coordinate tasks on Wikipedia might improve things over the current sorry state of affairs. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined01:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Somalia has been characterized as a failed state and is one of the poorest and most violent states in the world." Yes, that is clearly a brilliant system that we should strive to emulate right away! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind03:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe that you have held up Somalia as an example of good governance. The only thing that Somalia does effectively is piracy. You have now put a picture in my head of a pirate Council attempting to grab the treasures of Wikipedia. Why don't you drop this idea now, rather than expose yourself to more painful criticism. SpinningSpark10:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Starblind, I am not sure that it is necessary to so vehemently oppose this proposal, and I am certain that the suggestion that this is a "power grab" is below the belt. All else aside, the proposal is doubtless well-intentioned. AGK[•]11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you post a really dumb proposal, you will get strong opposition on it. This should not be a huge surprise. Especially since, as you yourself noted below, similar ideas have all been major failures or trainwrecks in the past. And yes, it IS a power grab. Giving wikiprojects power to govern Wikipedia even in a limited form would be a complete and utter disaster. Wikipedia: the Somalia of the Web! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind16:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir, for your astute observation. Wikipedia is, indeed, the Somalia of the Web! With no community-based legislative bodies to speak of in order to perform the really big projects of improvement on Wikipedia, we are gradually losing a fine and worthy resource to hordes of vandals and the longer-term scourge of the lack of improvement of articles after they are created. There is no way to mobilize the community at all on this place for any purpose. My proposal gives that option to the community. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on current description. Exactly how this council would be elected is not a particular concern for me, but rather what it would be empowered to do. What kinds of policies or guidelines (either proposed or currently existing) would be referred to this council to approve, or would have been referred to this council to approve if it had existed at the time? And why would it be preferable to refer such policies/guidelines to the council rather than to the consensus of those community members who want to participate? --Metropolitan90(talk)01:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Emergency situations are the circumstances in which a policy would be voted on in the Council. As for the policies it would vote on, these would certainly not include core content and editor conduct policies like WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V and WP:MOS. In more precise legal terms, the body may promulgate policies and guidelines relating to enforcement of other policies, policies related to deletion, and its own procedural rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs)
Oppose while I can understand the problems that led to this proposal, the proposed resolution would be a very bad idea and would not help. "Emergency situations" where policies and guidelines need to be created or modified are extremely rare. Many of the people most qualified to assist in the council would not be able to participate, including those who hold administrator or other rights. Wikiprojects aren't there to assist in Wikipedia's governance, they're there to collaborate on improving articles, and I don't think they would be suited to this change in role. As for the idea that the council could direct editors to improve some aspect of the encyclopedia, we are all here as volunteers, any order to help with something would be unenforcable and would probably lead to a drop in morale. The proposal would also lead to a situation where someone can gain admin rights through the shared account without community approval (or indeed approval from anyone apart from one Wikiproject which may not be very active), and where their admin actions cannot be traced to them personally. Hut 8.509:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although this proposal has the best intentions and some sound thinking, it also incorporates too many elements that are completely unworkable. Its striking similarity to many previous, failed proposals like Wikipedia:Editorial Council and Wikipedia:Policy council, and to some disasters like Wikipedia:Esperanza/Advisory Council compounds my fears. However, my most significant concern is that I do not think hierarchical structures like this are at all suited to Wikipedia as a community or to the more general "wiki" structure. I consider similar bodies like MedCom to be very different from what is proposed, with the only possible comparison being the ArbCom; and while we have used an ArbCom for many years, that body is limited in its scope and restrained to act only out of necessity. Unlike arbitration, this is not a necessary evil in any sense, and I must therefore oppose. AGK[•]11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unworkable and confused proposal. It neither could be implemented nor adapted into something workable, also, we really don't need any more councils with "constitutional documents" and bureaucracy. SnowolfHow can I help?19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The idea of giving WikiProject constituencies authority to promulgate policy for the whole of Wikipedia just makes my skin crawl. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Less bureaucracy not more please. We certainly do not need policies decided by committee, especially one whose membership is limited to representatives of a small number of "special" WikiProjects. KTC (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Creates a system reminiscent of the Rotten and pocket boroughs which once had undue influence in a certain parliament. Some projects have few members, yet they would gain tremendous power. Does each project even have an official list of members? Could a group of people join all the projects so as to elect their partisans in undue numbers? No system is in place to remove moribund projects and add new ones which might become important in the future. Consensus of interested editors is an adequate system. It is a pointless power grab and ill-thought out. Edison (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite good intentions it would quickly descend into a bureaucracy which would cause more problems -- and I have enough problems with bureaucracy in real life, why would I want to come on Wikipedia for more of the same!? Perhaps it is time to accept that Wikipedia will never be problem free. "Keep calm and carry on". Pol430talk to me20:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One may compare the number of Wikipedia articles to the observed number of stars in the open sky. Just as with stars, not all articles are equal; for instance, articles such as Barack Obama are larger and shine brighter than others.
Oppose - 3,966,386. It is remarkable how we got here. For the most part, Wikipedia is a mostly decentralized process; however, I say that is a key element in keeping the encyclopedia open and free, that people can come and go as they like. Building anything remarkable is no easy task, and that task requires lots of collaboration and coordination to make it happen.
The consensus model is different from the voting model. In a consensus model, you have a general agreement on something, whereas in a strict voting model, you really don't; i.e. a vote does not settle an issue, otherwise you're still going to have people divided over an issue, and many "losers" won't walk away. A consensus model strives to bring people together, while a strict voting model separates people. Many of us know that the consensus-building process is slow and takes time (which I recognize is sacrilege in the "get-it-done-now-and-yesterday-in-an-uberexpeditious-manner" world of the Internet), but those who think that straight votes can settle everything need to step into venues that they don't; labor relations is an excellent example.
Now, my problems with this "Council":
Community fragmentation: The requirements set forth to be a member suggests that some WikiProjects, and those editors who participate as part of them, are more important than others.
Alienation of administrators: Suggesting that administrators not be a member of this Council is equivalent to saying that administrators are not part of the Wikipedia community. This notion cannot be exercised, especially when administrators are able to edit the encyclopedia and participate in community processes along with everybody else.
Forced reorganization of WikiProjects: People will not like being forced to reorganize WikiProjects to suit this "Council"
WikiProjects would become political factions and not means to improve the encyclopedia: The project-space is not about politics, it's about improving the encyclopedia.
Goes against every principle and pillar this site was founded on: "Selection process", "Unaffiliated Candidates Constituency", "Councillors", "Internal procedures", "Request for Representation", "nonbinding vote count" (which is a BS term), "collective adminsitrative account", "constitutionality", "Promulgation of policies and guidelines" ... you know, I think was how the Galactic Empire would have been formed. And nearly all 15 statements of "What the Council of Wikipedia is not" directly contradicts either with Wikipedia's Five Pillars or, worse yet, this entity's own intentions. (Even worse yet, #9 contradicts with #15!)
No sense of community: Having decisions made "by Council Resolution" sounds much worse than "by community consensus" or "by general agreement".
Having reread Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza not too long ago, I think many people still have not learned the lessons from Esperanza, more specifically its decision-making process and general organization (and one can say it's general "larger than Wikipedia" mentality) that were at odds with Wikipedia itself. Such a "Council" would replant those seeds. But then again, it's been 6 years since then, and we have a new cadre of Wikipedians and user that have popped up since then. Perhaps we're trying to reinvent the wheel (and rediscovering all the problems behind its reinvention). --MuZemike20:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take it your reading of the pillars is that "there is nobody to go to but the 'community,' an amorphous blob which may work on small scales on articles but repeatedly blinds itself to the big picture of enormous number of articles failing." A bit off, I think. As for the "forced reorganization" part, work groups can be merged into existing administrative structures of WikiProjects. Administrators will be allowed to join as full members, but they will lose admin privileges while members and can regain membership without a fresh RfA after their term expires. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined23:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest proposer withdraw per WP:SNOW I didn't like this idea any better last year when it was called WP:Government. Yes, the consensus based decision making model has problems sometimes. This awful idea is not the way to solve those problems. Also, banning active admins and crats from participating makes no sense and guarantees the government will be toothless and that the most qualified persons will not serve on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading through this and distilling it down, it seems this Council would only have the "power" to "procure" editors to organize wikiproject actions. Since we're all volunteers, there would really be no procuring. Anyone can point out something that need attention across a class of articles and people can choose whether to take part. I don't see that changing just because a "Council" starts telling people to do those things. It would be a benefit to be able to do something like that, since wikiprojects don't have an easy time getting tasks going. As an alternative, maybe less formal groups might be better, one for each wikiproject, elected by each project, but whose only power would be to place tasks in a template box on the main project page to denote the current "official" tasks the project should be focusing on? Equazcion(talk) 00:11, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)
I have instituted a work group system as a part of this, which may be merged with existing WikiProject structures, and that seems to be what you are asking for. The reason for a Council is to engage the Wikipedia community at large, to ensure that there is one place where high-level decisions are made and large-scale plans are formulated in order to avoid destructive interference. The body will not be completely toothless, as there are still [binding] administrative regulations and the occasional policy or guideline. However, based on the comments here, I don't wish to make it excessively mandative. The purpose of the Council is not to pass documents for their own sake but to give Wikipedians a bird's-eye view on the encyclopedia and ensure that excessive decentralization and lack of communication and coordination do not cause the project to drown.
This is a fairly elaborate and far-reaching proposal. I am sympathetic to the idea that the lack of coordination between different processes and groups can create it impossible to get simple tasks accomplished through the inability to gain a singular consensus in issues that effect multiple communities. I'm currently trying to fix a two-year breakage in a fundamental, basic maintenance task and I feel that I'm getting the run-around, not because people aren't individually trying to do the right thing, but because each is working from such a limited (and in many cases, uninformed) perspective that it feels like a giant clusterfuck. So, trust me, I'm entirely sympathetic to the motivation here.
However, to justify a specific process (such as the proposal here), I think it would be best to back up, and start with an examination of the types of problems that we've already observed here, and make sure that the process fits the problems. I don't have a broad enough sense of the problem to be convinced that this is the right or the wrong way to go about solving it. So, tell me more... can you give me a set of examples of problems we're having today that this would solve? --joe deckertalk to me18:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not even bothering to Oppose this, since it hasn't a snowflake's chance in hell; it should really have got some feedback at the Idea Lab or at least WP:VPR before ending up on WP:CENT. But let's talk about it. First, it's fundamentally misguided in that it assumes that there is a real problem with adapting policy. There isn't. It may be slow to be adapted, but mostly this is fine, since practice doesn't strictly depend on policy. So we don't need a large amount of bureaucracy in order to create a sort of Emergency Committee with sufficient legitimacy to act in emergencies. Second, improving policy doesn't need a bureaucratic superstructure, it needs people willing to put in the time to do it. There is already Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines for anyone willing to pitch in. Third, improving coordination between wikiprojects is a very laudable objective. I made a proposal on this only last month (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_88#Topic_of_the_month), to which the only real response was "no, I can't be bothered to opt out of something once, even if an opt-out system is the only way this really useful thing will actually work". Which really represents how much effort people are willing to put into that... Fourth, to come finally to what this "Council" idea prompts me to think of: a steering committee or advisory council or some such. A select group of Wikipedians that had the legitimacy to look at the big picture of how Wikipedia is evolving and where it needs to go, and develop proposals for the community to consider, might be a Good Thing. And if that group had no actual power, except a certain moral authority to make recommendations that should be taken seriously by virtue of its members being elected, then it might actually stand a slight chance of happening. Slight, though - persuading Wikipedians to accept a new electoral mechanism would be hard. However, if it piggy-backed on the ArbCom election system, it might just be feasible. Rd232talk10:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not totally against a council with the authority to make decisions on policy where the community has been unable to reach a consensus, but per Joe Decker, I need to see some concrete examples of were the community has had real difficulty solving real problems before I would be inclined to support. In any case, the present proposal is totally unacceptable: membership simply must be open to all and be decided by the community as a whole. SpinningSpark10:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an Unaffiliated Candidates Constituency, open to all, which has eight seats. If you want, I could up that number. I just think that this might breathe some life back into WikiProjects and increase their member numbers. Also, I have a concrete example of how a lack of coordination and clear purpose which a Council could provide, but which community consensus (or worse, the work of individual editors who have no knowledge of each other's efforts) would take eons to decide on and more eons to act on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs)
The only way a council of this type could have any legitimacy is if members were elected by the community in a similar way to ArbCom. You can add as many seats to the "unaffiliated" group as you like and it won't change the fact that under this system Wikiprojects have a special role in electing candidates. Hut 8.511:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The membership of a WikiProject in the Council merely adds two members to the Council, and does not mean that they are elected through those projects. I suggest you (and everyone) look at the updated proposal, which addresses all of the criticisms which people are having, rather than looking at the out-of-date version on this page. However, I would like the discussion to remain on this page. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed my objection at all. My complaint is that Wikiprojects (or members of a Wikiproject) should not be choosing the members of the council. The technical details of how the Wikiproject goes about choosing those candidates are irrelevant. Look at the ArbCom elections to see an example of the sort of thing that might be acceptable. Frankly this proposal has been so roundly criticised that you should be withdrawing it and starting again. Preferably with something simpler. Hut 8.520:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation's current focus, and the project's primary problems, appear to be:
Poor editor retention
Lacklustre recruitment of long-term editors
In the first case, I do not think the problem is that we lack an authoritive body that makes binding content and policy decisions. Wikipedia has become rather successful on the model of low-level, community-wide, in-sample decision-making, and proportionally the number of decisions that require or are deferred to a "council" of the wider community is astronimically small. Almost every article is written by a single editor or a small group of contributors, and disputes for the most part are resolved during editing—or after a small discussion. Rather, the dysfunction of the community as it relates to "meta" issues, including drama over contributor in-fights, is probably to blame for the fact that so many editors leave; and certainly, most cite the often-poisonous atmosphere in our processes as the reason for their departure. Perhaps reducing bureaucracy, rather than increasing it, should be our goal.
In the second case, the main cause appears to be that our software is difficult to use, and that our site does not lend itself to newbies. A better help system, as well as support for the developer's on-going efforts to write a simpler MediaWiki, is probably a more effective course than a system of rigid co-ordination and oversight.
In short, I do not think we need to establish a "steering committee", because the main challenges facing Wikipedia do not call for any such solution. AGK[•]11:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I used the term "steering committee" above (the RFC proposal doesn't), but I said "steering committee or advisory council", and such a body with no powers except to look at the big picture and make recommendations to the community seems like a pretty sensible response to your description of the problem (which I agree with). It could be argued that electing such a body is pointless (just make a WikiProject), but the electoral element is key to making something actually happen (people elected will feel responsible!), and getting recommendations that are then taken seriously. Rd232talk11:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More committees, more elections, yet another tier of editors and yet another hat to collect are the exact opposite of what Wikipedia needs, especially if editor retention is our goal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind20:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? How on earth would a powerless Advisory Council endanger editor retention, exactly? In fact, thinking about how to improve that would no doubt be one of the primary concerns. Rd232talk22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My God, I have seen enough opposition. I will now codify the principles by which this Council operates. As for previous remarks of various boroughs having excessive power, that will be solved by criteria for entry. WikiProject Star Trek or some small operation like that will not have membership. I plan to restrict it to large operations like WikiProject Science. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined21:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what you hate about my idea so that I can improve it. I can't implement it alone and want the opinions of the community, but you are merely saying it is dumb, doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, et cetera. Stop just yelling and please say something which is helpful. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "More committees, more elections, yet another tier of editors and yet another hat to collect are the exact opposite of what Wikipedia needs", that was somehow too obtuse for you? Your whole idea can be distilled into one word: Beaurocracy. Wikipedia is not a beaurocracy, and in fact Wikipedia hates beaurocracy, always has and unless things majorly change, always will. If you want to improve articles or expand stubs or whatever, that's awesome, join one of the zillion projects that do that or just seek them out on your own. You don't need elections and bylaws and constitutions and blah blah blah to make an article better. You really don't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind22:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. You tell me to go myself and do something for the encyclopedia directly, which is all well and good, but it doesn't solve any of the larger problems. If everyone did what you advised this encyclopedia would be excellent and we would finally be cutting into the enormous number of stubs, among making other massive improvements to the encyclopedia. The only problem is that there is no body to set clear goals and organize the community which would make it do such things.
Systems organize themselves up to a point. In the early days of Wikipedia, there was no need for any administration at all, aside from administrators who were given powers through requests for administratorship and guarded the encyclopedia against vandals. That worked well until a point, when Wikipedia's community and content grew too large for such a system to handle the new circumstances. Then the Arbitration Committee and Mediation Committee formed, an event which was a manifestation of "More committees, more elections, yet another tier of editors and yet another hat to collect."
This was a necessary step, as otherwise there would be nobody to set community precedent with regard to editor disputes, causing confusion.
Today, we are seeing this problem return full circle. Without a body to set goals and create detailed plans for improving Wikipedia and actually implementing these plans at a faster rate than community consensus, Wikipedia is slowly receding beneath the waves. Policymaking will only be secondary to this body. I suggest you read the updated proposal here, which resolves the problems of many editors.
Comment - You want more editors? Give us WYSIWYG editing software that seems like editing a Microsoft Word layout. You want better editors? Recruit more professors. You want less vandalism? Implement a Sign-In-To-Edit policy. You want a decision-making process that doesn't always chase its tail to produce a No Consensus result after 50,000 words of blather? Start vesting editors with votes after (say) 6 months and 500 edits and implement something called democracy, with majority rules votes setting policy. You want more bureaucracy? Start a new coordination committee... Carrite (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I challenge all Wikipedians to look at this and tell me, with almost 40% of Wikipedia articles being short stubs, that without improved coordination in the past to improve articles this would still have occurred. I will give the benefit of the doubt - perhaps 50% of these articles could not be made any longer or are redirects - but I would still wager that there is a prodigious amount of information on the other 50% of articles. By the way, this is total page content, not even readable prose, which means that an even higher percentage of articles, perhaps 45-50%, are stubby articles.
With this scenario, almost any change to improve coordination is welcome. Wikipedians need to stop rejecting any and all elections on the encyclopedia and stop treating this like an Athenian democracy. We have over four times the number of citizens that Athens had, and there's no way we can gather all of them in one place at one time. Even Athens had officers to lead its armies, rather than the current Wikipedia model of the Arbitration Committee and Mediation Committee presiding over an amorphous mess. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah guys, be less like Athens and more like Somalia! (?!?) Once again, I don't even know where to start. Quit thinking Wikipedia is like a country or should be like a country. Wikipedia doesn't need generals, and we sure as all heck don't need yet another elected committee. You hate stubs? Great, go expand a few. One of the reasons Esperanza failed was that Esperanza business and yes, beaurocracy was taking up members' time to the point that many of them were no longer effective editors anymore. Even if you somehow managed to get this ludicrous proposal passed, it would do the exact opposite of what you want it to do. Less would get done, not more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind22:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "expand a few?" Why, there are well over a million stubs, and even at a high rate of ten a day improved I wouldn't finish this task within a human lifetime. Some body has got to coordinate editors in large numbers to improve these stubs, and there's no way that actions carried out by the community, without communication (why did I say "community" if there's no communication at all?) between editors will ever do anything. It has not yet produced any results. And yet you trumpet that as the solution to every problem. And by the way, the Somalia remark was sarcastic. Somalia has no bureaucratic nightmare at all, they have a failed-state nightmare. I'm not saying run this like a country, recruit 5,000 editors for this. In the end it will be more like 50-100 editors out of about 135,000 active total editors who are a part of the "bureaucracy." That's far slimmer of a bureaucracy than any country's ever going to have (about 0.07%), so your argument is pretty much moot. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined23:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your forgetting that we don't have citizens, we have volunteers who are in no way required to edit at any specific time, and who are in no way required to follow directions that someone else would give them. There may be a million stubs but if people don't care about improving them they will stay that way - they are very neatly listed in categories though (As is the other work) so people can be well aware where they areAlso, a council? 20 people who can make decisions that affect the entire wiki? A shared administrative account which password is changed around? Im sorry, but that will not work. Your proposing to change the entire base structure of Wikipedia itself, and that is simply not going to happen, no matter how hard you wish or try. As a sidenote - sharing accounts is explicitly forbidden by policy as well, so unless you wish to change that as well that also won't pass.
If i were to give any advice: Don't spend to much time on this entire proposal, as it got a snowballs chance in hell of passing. In fact there have been quite a few fantastic proposals over the years that were to revolutionize Wikipedia - or at least the creator thought so. In effect everyone else didn't think so, and all the hard work people spend on these was simply trying to get a ship to sail that didn't even manage to float in the first place. I know that this sounds harsh and nonconstructive, but i figured i might as well say it and save yourself a lot of work that will quite certainly go to waste anyhow. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wer, it sounds like one of the main problems this council would address would be the need to expand the large number of stubs. But this isn't a problem that can be addressed by a governing body that establishes rules. Rather, it's the kind of problem that could benefit from a WikiProject, let's say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub Expansion. It doesn't need elected representatives, terms of office, and other governmental trappings. What it needs is volunteers to write the article content. If you chose to start such a WikiProject, I think that would be a fine idea. --Metropolitan90(talk)03:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a WikiProject would be far too narrow in scope. This body is not supposed to have "governmental trappings," it's supposed to set directions and define clear goals on issues regarding improvement of the encyclopedia on a project-wide scale. No one WikiProject can do that. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined21:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also sympathetic to this proposal. Of course, any such proposal is doomed to fail. Because Wikipedians have way too many differing opinions. We're locked into the current system. The pending changes battle has shown that even with majority support, proposals that change Wikipedia's fundamentals take years to be fully implemented. And that's if majority support can be found.
If we had a central editorial authority, we would be far more efficient. Also, if we paid people to write articles, we could ramp up efficiency even more. (I have long intended to write some essays discussing radical proposals such as these, but haven't yet found the time to do so.) The key is removing bureaucracy and conflict. Less rules, and more order.
That seems counter-intuitive, but it can happen. All we need is someone or some group—ideally (though unrealistically) the group that owns the servers—to set the rules, and perhaps offer an incentive to contribute (i.e., follow the rules even if one disagrees with them, rather than leaving the site), and then we'll be back to writing an encyclopedia. (Of course, this would probably make Wikipedia's popularity die faster, but I'm usually wrong about these things.)
Additional major improvements could be a unilateral enforcement of content rules, such as eliminating all unsourced material, expanding inclusion guidelines to be plain and simple (and eliminate the need for most deletion discussions), and removing talk pages (because everything controversial would be decided by a central content authority).
Obviously, none of these things are going to happen. People like their freedom, the openness, the collaborative nature. I like it sometimes, too. But it's definitely not sustainable. There's so much information that subgroups and sub-subgroups and etc. form to decide how things run. These are like WikiProjects or committees. Unless we paid them, no centralized authority will stay on for a long time trying to coordinate nearly four million pages of who knows what crap.
Decentralization is not automatically inefficient. It can, contrary to what we see today, be unbureaucratic. If everything runs smoothly, it's like an assembly line: you're in your niche, I'm in mine. We all work together but we don't interfere. Ideally, we would have subject-area experts as our niche-area coordinators and whatnot.
The reason this doesn't work today is because people love interfering. They love offering their stupid opinions. For heaven's sake, we all need to stop acting like it matters. Why are we all so entitled to stating our opinions? I'm guilty of it all the time, even here. When someone has a trivial proposal, like renaming a page, we oppose because of this policy or that guideline or some reason or the heck of it. Oh for heaven's sake. If we all just shut up 99% of the time, we wouldn't be in this mess. Just because decisions are made by consensus doesn't mean we have to say what we think; that just stalls things. It's not like 95% of decisions on Wikipedia actually matter. I mean, seriously. Who cares what a page is named? Who cares about en dashes or em dashes? WHY DID DASHES EVER DIVIDE OUR COMMUNITY? It's ridiculous. Children. We all act like children.
We don't need coordination; all the pieces are in the right place. We have the assembly line. We just need people to have the sense to hold their tongue when they know controversy will brew.
Now someone please just tell me to shut up or prove me wrong and watch me try not to respond and pretend to prove myself right because that will just prove me a hypocrite, please.
Putting aside issues of who has authority to do what, why is there no Wikipedia "users group" where one might go to informally discuss user (i.e., editor) issues? 21:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
