i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument would be over. Consensus still wins.
On 2/2/11, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > We seem to be confusing several separate issues here. > > 1) Directive versus self organising organisations. > Those who believe that centrally controlled, planned organisations are > inherently superior to and less chaotic than decentralised self > organising organisations where power is devolved and individuals > empowered to make decisions will tend to have a problem with the way > Wikipedia runs itself. In political terms I see this as a Marxist > Leninist/Liberal divide, I don't know why there are still people out > there who think that a planned organisation with a strong leader > should outperform unplanned but cooperating groups of empowered > people, but there are people with that view and they will tend to > think of Wikipedia as chaotic, and consider chaotic a criticism. I'm > not convinced that real world political ideologies have a good match > with Wikipolitics, but I will happily admit to being a Liberal in my > instinctive assumption that "strong leadership" is more often a > disadvantage than an advantage. > > 2) Consensus versus Wikipedia's interpretation of consensus. > > Consensus building requires all or most participants to be willing to > discuss their differences and seek common ground. It fails when people > realise that to frustrate change all they need achieve is a blocking > minority. > > 3) Direct versus indirect Democracy > Direct democracy has the disadvantage that it doesn't scale up as well > as indirect democracy, and there is an argument that at one point EN > wiki was getting too big to work as a direct democracy, however as the > active editorship and active admin cadres are both dwindling that > argument is losing strength. Direct democracy has the failing that a > small minority of the clueless can give you inconsistent decisions; If > 49% want better services and are willing to pay the taxes to fund it, > and 49% would like to have better public services but not if that > means paying the taxes that would be needed, and 2% want low taxes and > better services, then in a direct democracy the 2% win both referenda > and the idea of referenda takes a knock, whilst in an indirect > democracy the 2% are the swing voters who decide which of the other > options wins. > > But it does have the advantage that you have a group of people from > the whole community who are empowered to rule on intractable local > disputes such as climate change and various nationalistic arguments. > Whilst depending on the people who turn up risks driving off all but > the fundamentalists. > > The case for more indirect, elected democracy in Wikipedia would > either depend on the argument that the community has scenarios where > existing procedures have produced inconsistent results, or where the > only people who turn up are involved, or that this is an acceptable > way to get round the drawbacks of consensus. > > My own experience of getting change on Wikpedia has been mixed, I was > involved in BLP prod, one of the biggest recent changes, and little > but remarkably uncontentious changes such as the death anomalies > project - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister_projects > Some of my other attempts to change Wikipedia have been rather less > successful. So I've got a lot of sympathy with those who want change > that has majority but not consensus support, much fellow feeling with > those who support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree > with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what > they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them. > > WereSpielChequers > > On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell <michaeldavi...@comcast.net> wrote: >> on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: >> >>> >>>> Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by >>>> the >>>> Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer >>>> and >>>> donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have >>>> nothing >>>> to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss >>>> of >>>> independence? >>>> >>>> Marc >>> >>> You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad >>> idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of >>> skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of >>> sense does that make? >>> >> Your use of the word "skulduggery" in this context is very telling, Fred. >> >> Marc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
