> Truth is, I'm not even sure I want to get into this. And, for the record, > this inquiry concerns only the English Wikipedia Project. I spend 99% of > the > time I have to devote to the English Wikipedia Project at editing > articles; > the other 1% being spent on the Mailing Lists. So, consequently, I know > very > little about the authority structure that exists in the Project. But > something that has been bothering me for some time now; something that > has > been touched on very cautiously at various times on this List; and > something > that I firmly believe is at the root of many of the problems that have > been > discussed on this List (and elsewhere) for some time now. What is the > actual > chain of authority that now exists in the Project? This I am certain of: > Sue Gardner is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Just > like > any corporate structure, her line of authority is clear enough. The > Foundation oversees (my term) and provides the technical equipment and > funding to operate the Project. Is there a similar "structure", "line of > authority" or "buck stops here" entity within the English Wikipedia > Project. > Would, could, someone please help me to see and understand it? I need > some > basics here so that I can take part in any discussion. > > Marc Riddell
Editing, content, and on-wiki policy is in the hands of the editing community, limited by their ability to agree. The exception is actions which create potential liabilities. Heavy responsibility I know... Fred Bauder > on 1/31/11 7:07 PM, Stephanie Daugherty at [email protected] wrote: > >> Regarding vested contributors, they are both a good and a bad thing - >> good in that retaining them means retaining experience, bad in that >> some of them have a sense of entitlement and that a few attract a >> "posse" that helps them to realize that entitlement. >> >> Cabalism is an unfortunate side effect of weak governance - banding >> into factions helps some to pursue their own agendas even if that is >> just to derail any sort of change that would weaken their position. >> >> Rfa reform and attempts to streamline desysopping have been largely >> stonewalled by relatively few people. Thats just one area but one of >> the longest running ones. >> >> I think a good next step might be to start a public debate on the >> issues we are now facing and invite the wmf trustees to participate in >> and lead the discussion. >> >> I don't think we need to rush headfirst into changes but we can't keep >> letting a few particularly loud and persistant voices keep throwing us >> off track for years at a time either so someone is going to have to >> get the ball rolling and have enough push to keep it moving. >> >> >> On 1/31/11, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 31 January 2011 14:38, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't >>>> Wikipedia >>>>> Governance Central. >>>> >>>> >>>> It's the closest en:wp has. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L >>>> mailing >>>>> list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there, >>>>> they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where >>>> there >>>>> are concerns. >>>> >>>> >>>> You're snapping at me, as if I'm causing this problem for you. I'm >>>> not, I'm telling you about it. >>>> >>>> Are you saying you would need them to intervene directly? It may be >>>> feasible for the arbcom - the closest en:wp has to a governing body - >>>> to invite WMF to do so. This would likely avoid directly crossing the >>>> streams (which would be bad) but get an outside force in there if the >>>> internal one really feels it isn't up to the effort. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> David, I'm not snapping at you particularly, although I do think >>> you've >>> hijacked this thread, which is intended to be about the gender gap. >>> (I'll >>> resist the urge to insert a sexist comment here. :) ) >>> >>> The only people in the WMF projects I regularly participate in who are >>> formally recognized as leaders are the WMF trustees. I would love to >>> see >>> them being more public in sharing their opinions, their observations >>> and >>> their experiences; they have the opportunity to see things from a very >>> different and much broader perspective than those of us at ground >>> level. I >>> am sure that HaeB would be happy to find a place on Signpost for a >>> monthy >>> "Discussion with a Trustee" that could then be flipped over to >>> Translatewiki >>> or wherever to share with multiple other projects. >>> >>> It is all well and good for (I count three) former arbitrators to say >>> that >>> Arbcom should be enforcing the civility policy, and to act as the >>> governors >>> of the project. But we are not the governors; in July 2009 the >>> community >>> soundly reminded us of that when we tried to set up an advisory >>> council. And >>> by the time a case gets to us, rude behaviour is often only an >>> offshoot of >>> the core problems of the case. >>> >>> Arbcom is hardly in the position to go through and review the actions >>> of all >>> admins with the hope of rooting out which ones are "uncivil" and which >>> ones >>> aren't. Even with the diminished number of active administrators, >>> there are >>> still 800 of them, and we aren't a human resources department. I >>> believe Rob >>> also has a good point; most entry-level rudeness and newbie-biting >>> comes >>> from non-administrators, be they RC patrollers who often revert and >>> leave >>> templated user messages without really reviewing the edits, or new >>> page >>> patrollers who are tagging articles for deletion less than 3 minutes >>> after >>> their creation. (I note that WereSpielChequers makes the same point.) >>> >>> Fred, yes, if someone files a request for arbitration, it's going to >>> be >>> taken seriously and reviewed seriously; the point is that people are >>> not >>> filing requests for arbitration that turn on this issue. >>> >>> And finally, I'll point out that if you're reading this list, you're a >>> vested contributor. Please stop using that term as if it's a bad >>> thing. >>> >>> Risker/Anne >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
