WS, what you say here is not a refutation of my arguments but simply stating a different point of view. And Arbcom is just one small part of a much larger and more complex problem. So I'm going to stick with my "diagnosis". Unfortunately, there is a great deal at stake to let it go at that; but that is what I must do.
MR on 10/30/11 7:30 AM, WereSpielChequers at [email protected] wrote: > I'm not a big fan of abstract calls for strong leadership, and I genuinely > don't see Arbcom as being a disaster - though there could be things it has > done that I'm not aware of. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to changes that > would make the pedia a "healthy, collaborative and fair creative > community", just not convinced that reforming or replacing Arbcom is the > place to start. > > Without knowing which aspects of the pedia Marc and Phil diagnose as > unfair or unhealthy it is difficult to know if your diagnosis is the same > or the reverse of mine. Though our preferred solutions are certainly > dissimilar. I'm not convinced that "lack of a formal, structured > full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia > Project". Remember the wiki is at its strongest as a self organising > community where people don't have to file requests in triplicate with some > commissar. I like the flexibility of being able to launch things like the > death anomaly project without having to seek approval from some central > authority. To me "a formal, structured full-oversight body" isn't a way to > achieve a "healthy, collaborative and fair creative community", if anything > its the reverse. > > That said we are a community in a longterm decline, which isn't in itself > healthy; But we are a large and committed community that is still getting a > lot done, so one shouldn't exaggerate the unhealthiness. We are still in > large parts an astonishingly collaborative community, despite the > unfortunate shift from fixing things to tagging them for others to fix. As > for the fairness, I'd be interest in knowing which specific aspects you > consider unfair. If there are any current or potential Arbs who you > consider unfair then the time to say so is during the election for Arbcom. > A well constructed case demonstrating that a candidate had a tendency to > unfairness would probably tank any candidate for Arbcom. > > WereSpielchequers > > > > On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a >>>> disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative >> and >>>> fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change >> that? >>>> How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about >> change, >>>> get started? I would be interested in helping. >> >> on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you >>> are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community >>> (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute >>> resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started >>> out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide >>> leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been >>> attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, >>> but the "community" tends to resist radical change, which is of course >>> part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too >>> radical changes). >>> >>> The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of >>> these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by >>> someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may >>> take months or years to come to a conclusion. >>> >>> Carcharoth >> >> I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that "What is needed is a body >> other than ArbCom to provide leadership". It is this lack of a formal, >> structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire >> Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't >> register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a >> formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to >> the structure of the Project require. >> >> Marc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
