Wikipedia talk:Governance reform

Agreement

I agree. Maybe not in all the details, but Wikipedia would definitely benefit from a more enlightened governance model. The lack of meaningful leadership around here leads to a dissatisfying status quo. Governance by committee of whoever shows up at a random discussion page is very challenging at best and self-destructive at worst. Dragons flight (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I as well support a change. Policy development and review is not being handled well in our current system. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Some sort of policy creation and review board (government, whatever), sounds like a good idea, but selecting individuals for it and term lengths could be problematic. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also thought about something like this. I think it's a necessary step, as the community grows larger. The m:Foundation issues include a principle that the wiki mechanism is used for content, but there is no reason that policies also must be written in that way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. We need a body of editors to act as some sort of a legislative body. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 12:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a while that sooner or later we're going to need something like this - I think we're probably at the stage where we should start serious discussing it. --Tango (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I like this, although I think the group of people should be smaller. It needs to be a deliberative body in order to work, and 50 is too many. 15 would make more sense. There is a wide set of fundamental changes built into this proposal, though, that I would like to see outlined. The use of a majority rather than consensus method, elections to essentially establish a project authority, a switch to policies that cannot be edited by the community at large, the creation of a new tier of user and new set of user rights (maybe). What are the wider effects of these changes? How would the policy process interact with Jimbo and the Board? I'm assuming even this group would be forbidden from editing WP:NPOV? This body should absolutely be separate from the Arbitration Committee, which should remain as the body that interprets and enforces policy and handles decisions about private matters etc. Avruch ^T 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Avruch seems to postulating a "constitution" of unchangable policies, which is probably a good idea. I would personally object to having the number being too small though, because we will have to take into account that very few if any of use are competent to speak reasonably about every possible policy set forward. Having a large enough body to ensure that there are enough people knowledgable about the subject being discussed would probably be more important than having too small a number. I do imagine that there would eventually be informal, de facto "committees" on most of the major policy areas, made up of editors familiar with that particular aspect of wikipedia, and that might be the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A constitution of unchangeable principles might be good, but the actual policies need to be editable (WP:NPOV has been edited nearly 100 times in the last month alone - and not all of those were reverted [1].) I like the idea of a committee system - I don't think you can get good representation with only 15 people, and there's also no room for people going inactive, with 50 it doesn't matter if a handful aren't around for a particular vote. --Tango (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's at least drop the number to 24 or 30 (note, divisible by three per proposed 3 tiered tranche system). 50 is just still way too many. Yes, we want to deal with absenteeism, but that can be done with 2 or 3 dozen. Also, there's nothing preventing this group from allowing others to help out. One need not be elected to a committee to voice an opinion. Talk pages abound. - jc37 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think having at least 50 is important, it will help to ensure that things can still continue even allowing for the almost inevitable inactivity by some. It will also enable a cross-section of the wikipedia community to be represented (different views/opinions etc.) and will help prevent those who disagree with decisions made from saying 'we (larger number) oppose/support this proposal so why is this (smaller number) forcing such a policy upon us'. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of my concern is considering how labour intensive arbcom elections are. Incidentally, 10 a year (30) would make this group exactly double the members of arbcom. Can we presume that 4 or 5 times that amount will "run"? As I recall, the last Arbcomm elections had only maybe 8 or 9 which even made the numeric threshhold. Let's not get so big that we're just filling seats to fill seats. - jc37 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your concerns. The only reason I would at this point want to keep the number fluid is because we still haven't figured out exactly what they'd all be doing in the first place. If members of ArbCom were to be permitted to join, that might make us want to change the existing totals. Addition of any other groups in any way might as well. And we haven't even discussed the number of specialized fields might be involved. We might, perhaps, find that if there were to be specialization (maybe direct election to a "Conduct" committee, or any other possible groups for example), it might actually increase the number of candidates by more clearly defining their primary role. After we define what it is they'll all be doing, we'll have a better idea how many of them there should be. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

3 tranches with yearly elections would mean 3 year terms - that's far too long. It doesn't work for ArbCom (most people resign before completely their term), so even if it was a good idea to have people on the assembly that long we wouldn't actually be able to. 30 people with 10 elected every 6 months might work, although I would prefer slightly more (48, say). --Tango (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal (and wish I'd noticed it earlier). Wikipedia has three options:

1. Allowing its policy to continue to stagnate,
2. Having the Foundation step in to impose structure on the community,
3. Having the community come up with something like this.

Of these, the third is by far the most preferable. Of course, I imagine this will fail for the same reasons as it's needed, which leaves us a choice of the first two. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a proponent of parliamentary procedure, and although it does not work for things like content disputes, this refined version appears to me to be exactly what is needed to stop the rapid deterioration in the policy-making process—especially when considering the on-going specialisation and sophistication of guidelines (one look at the Community Bulletin Board is a strong indication of this trend).

Regarding the specifics, now... I support using three tranches, so that continuity may be ensured, but three years are just too much. Elections every six or eight months are fine with me, resulting in eighteen- or twenty-four-month-terms respectively. As far as the number is concerned, I support a large body, with at least fifty members; not only would it be more representative of the quite sizeable electorate and less affected by absences, but it would ensure that the decisions would be more balanced. More different backgrounds and opinions can help shape a more acceptable solution overall. Perhaps certain criteria should be put in place to guarantee a more variegated membership. Waltham, The Duke of 20:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy vs. guideline

Sounds interesting, but I think we should still retain the community's ability to affect guidelines.

(for brevity, I'll call my suggestion "Policy Review (PRV)".)

So have it so that all new community designed "policies" start out as guidelines, and this new policy review committee (or whatever we call it) only determines if these guidelines should become actual "policy". In addition, they should probably have the ability to review all current policies and see if any should be deprecated to guidelines, and whether guidelines should be deprecated to essays.

So it would be a case of someone nominating a guideline (or essay) for review. Run like a combination of a DRV and arbcomm. The elected committee (let's say for now that they're elected the same way as arbcom) would would discuss, with everyone else discussing on the talk page, with the PRV committee result found the same way as an arbcomm ruling.

Obviously the details in format or whatever are changeable, but this at least illustrates how it could work.

Essentially the committee would be:

• Reviewing a policy for demotion
• Reviewing a guideline for promotion or demotion
• Reviewing an essay for promotion

So no individual editor would be able to mark a page "policy", it would require either PRV, or some other group to do so (such as the wikimedia project).

But anyone could mark a page an essay, and anyone could mark a page a guideline, while knowing that doing so may have the page nominated for PRV.

What do you think? - jc37 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a variation on the standard "bill nomination" model, which I think might work. There might be a question regarding a necessary new policy regarding a subject which doesn't even have guidelines yet, and various legal or otehr situations could result in the need for a quick creation of a new policy. We might also want to specify a specific number of days for comment on a proposed policy or policy removal before a vote would take place, but that should be relatively easy to arrive at. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be unnecessary makework on an already broken system. I'd prefer to do away with the misleading policy, guideline and essay templates, and basically rank project namespace pages by some other ranking system. (A ranking system with just 3 ranks is never going to be very fine grained).

The best proposal I've heard so far is to rank pages by number of pages linking to them (compare the old google pagerank algorithm).

This can be done by a computer, and saves valuable human time. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Interpret the policies

It just occurred to me that this would also be useful as a group "at the disposal of Arbcomm". So that if arbcomm is looking for an interpretation of a policy/guideline/essay, this group could present a "finding". This would allow arbcomm to focus more on arbitration and less on policy interpretation. To clarify, PRV would interpret policy, Arbcomm would interpret actions of an editor. And to do so, would rely on PRV to present an interpretation of policy, when wanted/needed. (Others can argue out whether arbcom is "bound" to the PRV's interpretation or not.) - jc37 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Need identified but policy not written

One of the biggest problems that we have is that Wikipedia is lacking policy in some areas despite a need for them. Over the last several years, the Arbitration Committee has advised the Community of the need for several new policies or policy re-writes but the Community does not seem able to do it in a manner that gain consensus. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So you would imagine this committee not only blessing existing or new guidelines, but also creating new policy de novo? I'm not opposed to this at all, just clarifying. I think that is probably a good idea, but when it is completely new, or via a arbcom request should the community have input, or only the indirect input of voting? - cohesion 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference would be something like the existing set-up of ArbCom, where there is a page where initially everyone can make their comments regarding a proposed policy, including changes to phrasing, and where later the designated policy shapers can work out any further details regarding the exact phrasing. Allowing separate pages for both community input (particularly before the final consideration, but also during it) and one for the more formal revision/ratification process among the designated individuals, has seemed to work fairly well so far. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On a practical level, I'd certainly think that any policy-making body would receive community input in the form of direct comments in any case. New policy—whether proposed by a member of the committee or by another editor—would presumably go through the normal public proposal & feedback phases; the only real difference would be that the elected body would make the final decision on whether said proposal (or some version of it) would become policy or not. Kirill 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe more changes

Right now, ArbCom functions basically as our judicial system. Generally, a government will have executive, legislative, judicial, and enforcement entities. We already have some corporate execs, and this proposal would function effectively as our legislative wing. Some could argue that all admins are in the enforcement wing, although I think, if we had enough interest, it might be a good idea to specifically name a number of editors as specific "enforcers", similar to many governments' police.
Additionally, we could probably stand for our "lawyers", or topical or conduct experts, as well. These wouldn't necessarily be appointed or elected positions, but rather like expert witnesses individuals called in by the ArbCom as informed, neutral parties knowledgable about a specific topic under discussion. These individuals might even be, if in any way specifically designated, the effective "content judges", although that might be going too far.
Lastly, I note that there is an extant proposal for ombudsmen at WP:OmbCom which might be relevant to this proposal as well.
We definitely do neep some sort of way of expediting the creation of policy. Maybe it might be possible to create !voting periods for certain proposals which haven't been rejected, so that there could some at least potentially binding policies in necessary areas. Would I be right in thinking that maybe the bureaucrats would be the ones to decide on the final results, possibly based on a required percentage of the !votes on a given subject? John Carter (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a first step, perhaps. I suspect that referendum-style voting is going to become impractical (if it hasn't already) because of drive-by voting. A fixed pool of votes (as in an elected body) allows a proposal to undergo modifications during the voting process until it can garner sufficient support to pass. With an open pool of votes, however, there's nothing to cause early voters to reconsider after modifications, and each modification conceptually invalidates all the earlier votes without any real provision for restoring them. Kirill 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to consider the press aka the fourth power as well. Although we have the Signpost, its role still need to be thought of. User:Ral315 failed RfB (Executive branch) because of his involvement of Signpost (forth power). SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The chicken or the egg

I have not thought about all details, but I agree with the general analysis: Basically, it seems that there is no controlled way at this time how policies are made, or changed. Ironically, one might say that not even the current policy has consensus; proposed as new policy, it would most probably end up being rejected.

But in the end, this proposal may suffer from a kind of chicken-and-egg problem: By the very analysis, and since it would constitute a major change, it would never have a chance to get consensus. Maybe it would have to be imposed by the foundation, or similar, to become effective.

Actually, has even the ArbCom system once been set up in consensus? --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean an explicit expression of consensus? The closest thing would be the ratification vote from 2004; but that's not really applicable to the present environment of the project. Kirill 05:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both the analysis and the proposed solution. (But note that any form of voting will have to seriously deal with issues of sockpuppets, more than we have up till now.) However, as Wolterding says, the chances of the community reaching consensus on such a far-reaching reform are slim. --Zvika (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as pessimistic, I think many people are frustrated with the current state of decision making, and may support something like this, knowing that their views will still be represented. I could be wrong of course. :) - cohesion 15:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, the Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority. We are under no legitimate obligation to obey its dictates or "resolutions". Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find little traction for that argument. You're right that nobody is obligated to obey arbcom's dictates, but nobody is obligated to participate in Wikipedia either. If someone is sanctioned by arbcom and doesn't like it, they are free to leave, or stay and try to reverse the sanction, or stay and live with the sanction. But the argument that the sanction doesn't apply at all isn't likely to go far. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

policy consolidation

It seems to me that the most valuable thing that such a body could do is consolidate, not create, policy. Kill pages that are basically rewording of pre-existing policy, move single-author ranting to userspace, merge related policy clarifications, etc. I'm amazed that any new users can make heads or tails of our policy structure, 'cause I sure can't. - BanyanTree 10:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree, simplifying and clarifying policy I think would be the best thing this group could do. There is a lot of cruft in our policies now that doesn't serve that much actual purpose, and is very confusing for new users. - cohesion 15:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Committee members

I propose that they be elected by the community and serve six-month terms (they are allowed to run for re-election twice). Good idea? STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 12:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Six month terms sounds good. I personally wouldn't necessarily want to place term limitations though. We might have a few very respected individuals who we might want to keep in office indefinitely, the "elder statemen", as it were. I hope not too many of them, but I don't think that'll be a problem. I imagine this type of post will have major burnout issues anyway, limiting the number who would even want to stay in office for very long. I really think we'd have more difficulties getting people to take on the post than possible problems of people not wanting to leave it. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, as long as there is good transparency (which I think should be an obvious goal and requirement of this plan) I think the Wikipedia community is well-informed enough to not require term limitations. If someone is doing something bad, I think the community will know. This is a good idea by the way. :) I like the idea of guidelines by the community, and policy by this group. - cohesion 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 6 months (or maybe 18 months and 3 tranches, so 1/3 are elected every 6 months). Much shorter, and we waste time with constant elections, much longer and the body isn't really accountable to the community. I also see no need for term limits - if the community don't want someone to continue serving, they can just not vote for them. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer yearly terms (tranches, etc are fine by me), based on the same reasoning of tango above: "Much shorter, and we waste time with constant elections, much longer and the body isn't really accountable to the community."

Every six months is just too short a time for this. (And a yearly term has several precedents at Wikipedia, and Wikimedia.) - jc37 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But so much can happen in a year, and the assembly could easily no longer represent community views by the end of the term. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which makes it a perfect time for an election : ) - jc37 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes it too late for an election. The elections should be frequent enough that the assembly is always pretty close to representing the community. --Tango (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was actually disagreeing with the notion that at the end of a year they would be "out of touch", but was allowing that after that they potentially "could" be.

But seriously, just because you're a part of a committee, you lose touch with reading/experiencing policy? I highly doubt it. - jc37 18:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they would be out of touch, I said they may no longer be representative of the community. People on the assembly are likely to be people with strong opinions that aren't likely to change as fast as the general community. They may well know what the community wants, but that doesn't mean they'll vote that way (generally, politicians vote according to their own opinions [or those of their party], not according to the views of their constituents). --Tango (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's compromise: 2 year terms, and a 2-tranche system, with elections yearly. Better? - jc37 19:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How is that a compromise? It's more extreme than your last suggestion... I think 18 months terms in 3 tranches (so 6 monthly elections) is best. If you want a compromise, how about 18 month terms in 2 tranches, with 9 monthly elections? --Tango (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually we were (I thought) talking about two different things... Frequency of election, and length of terms. Yearly elections with 3 tranches = 3 years. Hence the "compromise". (And honestly, I do think 3 years is way too long.)

Here's the pron;em, as I see it. I would support year long terms. But I would want membership terms overlap. And that measn elections more often than a year, which I would oppose. (I think yearly elections is often enough.) So how would that be resolved? Well, a 2-year term, with 2 tranches, and yearly elections is one way. A 2 year term, with 4-tranches, and elections every 6 months is another.

I used 2-year terms because it's more easily scalable. Consider the above with single year terms: 2-tranche with elections every 6 months; 3-tranche, with elections every 4 months; 4 tranche, with elections every 3 months. Elections simply would happen way too often.

I don't like 18 month terms, sinply because it's confusing. Let's stick with terms with length in years.

So I think I'm the most strongly leaning towards 2 year terms. - jc37 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

I don't think 18 month terms is confusing. 18 monthly elections would be, but no-one is suggesting that. I wouldn't object too strongly to 2 year terms in 4 tranches, though, if people really want an integer number of years. --Tango (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Term limits

Even if very liberal in usage would be essential. Say, 3 on, 2 off, 3 on, 2 off; or 3 on, 1 off cycles. The last thing we need is a stagnant pool of delegates, when we're trying to fix stagnant policy change now. No one "needs to" or should be on something like this or the AC forever or constantly. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But such term limits aren't a restriction on delegates, they're a restriction on the voting community - why shouldn't the community be able to vote for whoever they want? --Tango (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They can. My thinking is that if Tango serves in 2009 and 2010, he takes off 2011 to let a fresh set of eyes in, but can run again in 2012 and 2013, but has to sit out 2014. The idea being so that there is deliberate shift to some degree, so that we don't end up with 80% or something of the Delegates in there for 6+ years. But if there is no support for that notion of mine, it is what it is. I'd want the same sort of thing for Arbcom, as well. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A complete reversal of the nature of "policy"

We don't need a body to write "policy", because properly understood, "policy" on Wikipedia merely describes what is already happening, and are most emphatically not binding rules. Actions do not follow "policy"; rather, "policy" follows actions. A failure to understand this simple concept is what's truly at the root of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's how it was meant to be, yes, but it doesn't really work like that any more because there are too many people involved. Policy being descriptive only works if we can actually establish a true consensus, and that's rarely the case any more. --Tango (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. That's the point--people go ahead and do what's best in a given specific situation. Later on, someone comes along and describes what typically happens in certain situations and writes that up as a guide so people know what to probably expect, with the understanding that there's no guarantee because there are no obligations to obey it. You don't need a "consensus" to do that; you just need to pay attention to what's going on around you. What is being proposed here is a complete repudiation of the concept of a wiki, and I will not stand for this institutionalized hypocrisy. There's enough of it already as it is. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have several policies that are often considered "normative"; the main objection I have to this is that the policies were not written with that intent. If there were a body that was charged with writing reasonable, normative policies, but all people were still free to edit individual pages subject to these, that would not "repudiate" the concept of a wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You do need a consensus, otherwise you have people doing different things, so what do you write up? You can only have a descriptive policy if everyone does things the same way - ie. you have a consensus. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Draft as a viable guideline

There is no way that a proposal, nay mind a guideline could be without links to WP. Even the folks at the Boston Tea Party ditched clothing and created a new constitution. What you have is the most ill thought out proposal I have ever seen. I'll work with you but - you editors refine and condense before you invite other editors to the brigade. - BpEps - t@lk 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's always good to have some discussion before worrying about the details of the proposal. --Tango (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on, the proposal is drafted as some kind of Wikipedia declaration of Independence. You point out nothing specific in your reform, just a lot of words which would confuse. Drop it and let editor mark it for deletion if you will not re-write it for universal understandable English. BpEps - t@lk 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here... it's not my proposal... --Tango (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Before it can be drafted as a viable guideline, we would have to know what the guideline would actually say, wouldn't we? That is what the discussion which has taken place to date has tried to determine. It is a comparatively newly stated, if not entirely new, idea, and as such the specific phrasing which you seem to be requesting cannot be clearly and definitively made. After there has been discussion as to what is to be included in the policy or guideline to the extent that there is agreement, if such arises, then I have no doubt that there will be the specific phrasing you're requesting. It took three weeks between when the United States Declaration of Independence was proposed and the time it was finally presented as a draft, and the people working on it were able to work on it for a concerted period of time. I would expect it to take at least that long before this proposal gets to the finished state you are requesting. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've written a form in a common English while still holding your principles, I think it reads better for non native English speakers/Lawyers - User:Bpeps/Governace - Really It does have your principles at heart. -- BpEps - t@lk 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support as a legislative body

I like the comparison that someone made above to the three branches of government. We already have a judicial branch in the ArbCom, and an executive branch in Jimbo and others. What we need now is a policy making branch. I disagree with some above who have said that this new body should have the function of interpreting policies. That is already ArbCom's job and should stay that way. This body should make policy, while listening to the opinions of the community, just as a real legislature does. I think that a body of 50, with elections every six months and no term limits, sounds great, for reasons already enumerated by others above. Finally, as an aside, being interested in China as I am, I strongly support calling this new body the Legislative Yuan. (That was only partially a joke)--Danaman5 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're comparing this (I presume) to the American governmental system, Here's the difference: The application of the interpretation.

In an arbcomm case, there are several sections, including "finding of fact". Anyone can edit and propose those. In other words, anyone can be a Wikipedia version of a "constitutional scholar".

It's not up to Arbcomm to interpret policy (though there have been a few direct specific exceptions to this recently), it's up to Arbcomm to determine if the findings of fact apply to the case at hand, and (being pro-active, and future minded) other potential similar cases in the future.

Or to simplify (as I mentioned above) PRV would interpret policy, Arbcomm would interpret actions of an editor, and apply the policy to those actions.

• PRV is about determining policy within the framework of Wikipedia's mission
• Arcomm is about determining an editor's actions within the framework of Wikipedia policy.

And they have said repeatedly that they don't make policy. (Though, as I mentioned, there have been a few exceptions recently. All of which would likely have been handled by the PRV if it had existed then.)

I don't to get too bogged down on this, as it's something minor, and would likely come out de-facto, eventually, anyway.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies. - jc37 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom do interpret policy - that's what the "Principles" section is for. --Tango (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which are listed by anyone, and discussable by anyone. (And noting that, atm, the PRV committee doesn't exist, so someone has to, in the meantime : ) - jc37 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed principles are listed and discussed by anyone. The principles that appear in the final decision are decided entirely by ArbCom. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Idea

Further information: User:Stormtracker94/Governance reform

Add ideas if you want here to here.

See also: User:Stormtracker94/Legislative list

- a lost of areas that would be represented.

This would act as a legislative branch in a new form of government, functions somewhat like the U.S. government:

Executive branch:

• Jimbo Wales (compare to president)
• Angela (compare to vice president)
• Board of Trustees (compare to cabinet)

Legislative branch:

• Legislative body 1 (compare to U.S. Senate, approx. 50 members)
• Legislative body 2 (compare to U.S. House, approx. 200 members)

Judicial branch:

• ArbCom (compare to Supreme Court)
• ANI (compare to lower courts)

The legislative branches would act like the U.S. legislative system, a policy must be passed my a ⅔ majority on both sides and approved by the president (Jimbo) to be passed. The first branch would be elected members of the community that apply, and would serve terms for six months. The second one would be users chosen to represent specific areas of the project, so opinions would be balanced (e.g., representative from WP:MILHIST, one from WP:KIND, one from WP:BASEBALL, etc.) STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The link to the page doesn't seem to work. Also, while I don't dispute the idea that there should be representative voices from all across wikipedia, I would very much hesitate to proscribe any specific criteria (like being a member of a given WikiProject, for example.) My guess is that members of that project would support their fellow members in any event. But it clearly would help if the various nominees had all demonstrated some competence relevant to the post. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that there should be one member from each major project or area represented. This would erase any possibility of biased voting, etc. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a bicameral legislature would be a bit more than necessary at this point. Two hundred fifty legislative positions on the site would be a bit unwieldy, particularly when it comes to elections. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think around a dozen, more or less, would be optimal. (Arbcomm is 15, I think). - jc37 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need more than that to get decent representation - I think 50 would work well. The benefit of a small body is in discussion and drafting, but hopefully most of that will be done by the community, this body would just vote at the end. --Tango (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you have Angela as VP? That seems rather random... She's a former board member, but other than that she's never held an particular power individually, and certainly doesn't now. Also, I see no need or even reason for Jimbo to have a veto on all policy decisions. He doesn't now, why would you increase his level of power? I also see no need for a bicameral system... It seems you're just trying to replicate the US system of politics as closely as possible - just because the US does it that way doesn't mean it's the best way (especially not for us, seeing as we're not even a country...)! --Tango (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd drop the executive branch altogether. That the Foundation's business, not ours. It could put any peron or persons in any position it would desire, at it's discretion. We'll have enough to worry about just with the other two branches, anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like us to avoid comparisons to a single form of government. Wikipedia is not a country, and has different (though, at times similar) needs for/from governance. I really think we need to stay open-minded in this and not get bogged down by comparisons to this government or that. Yes some things may be similar or comparable, but some thing are distinctly not. - jc37 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jc37 that comparisons to other forms of government will not really assist us in this. I think the general idea being discussed here is a very good idea but lets produce a reform that it is geared for the needs of wikipedia and keep centred on forming a policy making body and not trying to fit the different areas of wikipedia into other government structures. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think, for example, that a bicameral legislature is necessary for Wikipedia. The reason that such legislatures have arisen in the real world is primarily due to issues surrounding the representation of certain constituencies and disparities in wealth and stature. Since we are a group of semi-anonymous internet users, and individual members of this legislative body wouldn't be assigned to represent particular constituencies, the need for a bicameral system disappears. I was not, by the way, intending to suggest such a close alignment between Wikipedia and the American system, or any other system, in my comment above. I agree that any system should be geared toward the needs of Wikipedia.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds familiar...

This reminds me somewhat of an analytical essay I wrote some time ago, User:Walton One/Constitution of Wikipedia. As regards the discussion above, I disagree that Jimbo and the Foundation trustees constitute the executive branch of Wikipedia -they're more like absentee landlords. Rather, the executive branch consists of the admins and bureaucrats. Broadly speaking, it's the community's job to make law (really a form of direct democracy except, paradoxically, without voting), the administrators' job to enforce law, and the ArbCom's job to interpret law (though they sometimes effectively make new rules, just as the US Supreme Court does from time to time).

Returning to the main topic, I do agree, though, that an elected legislature, with a fixed membership, would be a good idea for a community of this size. I disagree with Kurt Weber's remarks that policy should be merely descriptive and not prescriptive. The rule of law is inherently desirable; people should know what the rules are, what they can do and what they can't do, and should be protected from the arbitrary exercise of power. So I do support a formal "legislative" policy-making process for Wikipedia. Having said that, I doubt it will ever gain consensus due to the community's innate conservatism. Walton^One 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That legislature should be fairly big consisting of various individuals instead of getting the same, perfect little admin group running the show. Since this probably won't happen, I'm against this idea. Monobi (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Government surely?

The United Kingdom sort of invented tiered judiciary rule and exported it after we burnt the White House down. Tiered judiciary works better because in the Uk system we have more judges and peers (Magistrates.

Appeal

• Jimbo
• Angela
• Godwin

The High Court

• Godwin (Chief Clerk)
• The Happy Arbcom Team

The Crown Court

• A Representative from Arbcom
• Wikipedia Bureaucrats

Magistrates

• A representative from Bureaucrats
• Two Admins picked by universal ballot/lottery

For any subject/individual/article to go up before the relevant courts (with process) it would be necessary to establish two further forces. (Leet) - 50 outstanding members of the Admin corp decided on by the ranks of the judiciary. (Police) - an admin who hasn't been reported to AN/I within the last 3 weeks. Police refer to Leet and set articles in motion. (Flagged Rollbackers do routine maintenance work and report to Admins who are not yet police. Editors just quake in fear. BpEps - t@lk 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Angela appearing on all these lists? What does she have to do with anything? --Tango (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is true. I think Angela knows lots and lots to be co-opted onto our court of appeal while still being part of a separate organisation. The Trustees could still form part of (Privy Council/House of Lords and or European Parliament) as an further tier. BpEps - t@lk 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejected

Learn to use the consensus model correctly.

We've been discussing how consensus derails. This has nothing to do with how wikipedia scales, and everything to do with how people have misunderstood the consensus system in the first place.

I'll add more later, but I'm in a skype chat atm :-P

There's actually a previous similar page which was dropped Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal, that was started by people who were also influentual at the time.

Finally, an attempt to remove consensus from the process probably doesn't have consensus.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

{ec) - I'm sorry, but I disagree. It's more acknowledging that others have "learned how to manipulate the consensus model, contrary to its intent". And by the way, if you read over consensus and consensus decision-making, you'll find that some oversight body has to make the final decision. It's the same reason some individual "someone" closes XfD discussions. So no, in my opinion, we're embracing the consensus model. - jc37 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus maybe? We're using the wiki-model which roughly looks like consensus, and we're using it mostly to edit pages. For that it works. It also works well for policy, though in recent months some people have been blocking consensus inadvertently in some places. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which has apparently undergone quite a few changes in the past few days. That aside, Maybe, rather than talk around each other (as it seems we're doing), let's discuss consensus. I have a feeling we may agree. - jc37 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are mostly tidying up changes, but that's part of my point actually. ;-) This is a major policy which is not suffering any problems whatsoever with regards to maintenance. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC) contrary to what is claimed here :-P ... that and we should obviously eat our own dog food

Sorry, I can't help noting this irony - somebody comes along and marks the proposal rejected (while it is still being discussed), and tells us this is the way consensus works? --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? We can reject bad ideas and perennial proposals that failed before? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's we? The proposal is a very early stage, but several editors have expressed support on the talk page. Now a single user comes along, does not contribute to the proposal, does not engage in debate, but his very first post to the talk page is "the proposal is rejected", referring to a 3-years old discussion. And he argues with consensus. Doesn't that strike you as ironic? --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally reject a proposal, even if it is a perennial one. Consensus changes - read this talk page and you'll see plenty of support for the idea. I've reverting your edit. --Tango (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not unilateral if the proposal is perennial. Community has spoken on this many times. Can you imagine that folks might not really ready to embrace something that states that people want to undermine the consensus model? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're guessing what consensus is based your personal opinion, rather than actually reading this talk page. The evidence is right in front of you - read it! --Tango (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did. I was hoping to spot something useful, but the talk page contains mostly previous perennial proposals and other failed concepts :-(. The proposers haven't helped out in documenting the current wiki-editing process, and it kind of shows. :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More extensively: The policies, guidelines, and essays till now have been descriptive of wikipedia best practices. That's why we have WP:IAR, for instance, you're allowed to do what you want, and then document what is being done. People here seem to want to institute a prescriptive system.

This is rejected by the current system for the following reasons:

• It is not actually descriptive of any particular process currently in use.
• It fails to describe any current best practice.
• It does not recognize current practice.
• It attempts to deprecate consensus.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well first this is a discussion about creating a proposal, not the proposal itself.

But that aside:

• So since a process doesn't exist, a new one can't be created?
• As I've noted, this is a discussion to create the proposal, not the proposal itself.
• Consensus
• No, I disagree. It's merely dealing with some specific needs in the determination of it.

Perhaps once the proposal is in a more "finished" state, we'll agree more. (Though that might be a sign of possible "consensus"...) - jc37 19:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically I've been here before several years ago. Now, once again, people are discussing basically to abolish the consensus system. I don't think much has changed though, and I don't think that abolishing consensus is possible on a wiki. There has to be at least one person here who is willing to fight really really hard to prevent that from happening. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mention above, I'm in support of the consensus system. Maybe we're talking about similar things, or maybe different things. Let's figure that out? - jc37 20:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, where to start? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we should create a page for the proposal and what it would change. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

:-P And we should totally actually read other people's work on this. I've never let a committee take over policy before, and I'm not really happy to let anyone do it now either. I get the feeling that this is mostly politics. Does that make sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been around several years as well (with varying levels of activity), and a lot has changed in that time. The main difference is that there are far more people around now - consensus decision making doesn't work with a large group. Just take a look at RfA - it is now a vote for all intents are purposes because there are too many people involved for a true consensus to ever be formed. --Tango (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this argument is perennial as well. It turns out that the wiki is very scalable. Only small numbers of people work on any page at any given time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But we're not talking about content, we're talking about policy. Consensus works fine for the vast majority of content editing (admins can step in with protection and blocks in the few cases where it doesn't), but it doesn't work for policy making. We virtually never change policy significantly because we can never establish a consensus. I won't give examples because any particular example can be dismissed as not being broken, but do you really claim that our current policies are all near perfect? --Tango (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I update policy pages whenever necessary, and don't have many issues except in cases where people were blocking consensus (like in the recent NFCC situation). I gave it a BRD kick or two. How's that coming along now? People are at least talking, right? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk)

(Grin) So that's what this is. (rubs shin) - jc37 20:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the shin! ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jc37: Note that the current system is consensus through wiki-editing, but this page does not at this point even remotely describe it, or link to the relevant documentation. Of course people who wrote this page are frustrated if they can't get policies together.

I understand that they would very much like to force their views on others, and are frustrated because they cannot.

I've started many policies and systems. I'm indirectly responsible for WP:5P even, and I've successfully defended the foundation issues from deprecation or deletion. I don't have a problem with the current system; Why don't people want to learn to use it?

Essentially I see this as a power-grab by the wiki-nomic contingent, and I'm not amused at all! :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it power grabbing by anyone? The proposal is for elections, there's no reason to believe the people proposing the change are going to win those elections. --Tango (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If the election happens, the consensus system dies, afaict at this point in time. Perhaps people can convince me otherwise? (but it seems fairly hard, it's the proposed committee that would undermine consensus, afaict) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not about the consensus system for determining article content. Article creation by consensus is a foundation issue and nobody is proposing to change that. There is no reason to expect that policy must be formed by consensus, as well; that is not a foundation issue. At some point, as the user base gets larger, we need to accept that not everyone will be able to participate in every policy discussion. The most sensible system in that case would be the one adopted by virtually every large group of humans: to choose a smaller group to discuss and make decisions on behalf of the larger group. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus system for making policy would no longer exist under this proposal, you're correct. The consensus system is already dead though - to mangle a metaphor, you're riding a dead horse. You mention you've made a few changes to policy, but how many of those were significant changes? --Tango (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, the consensus system for making policy would no longer exist under this proposal, you're correct." - Please clarify that for me. - jc37 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you want clarifying? The final decision on policy would be made by a vote of a fairly small assembly, as opposed to consensus. That's the essence of the proposal. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Do others agree with you on that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do. We need a formal process of approval for new policies, which must inevitably involve a binding vote. This nebulous concept of "consensus" is fine for a small wiki, but is not sufficient for so large a community as this one. Walton^One 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't. At least not those words, the way I read them.

The use of the word "final" is absolutely a non-starter, for one thing.

I'm starting to wonder if I'm truly understanding the proposal. (And hoping that this proposal is still adaptable enough to still be workable from within the "wiki-way".) - jc37 22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is hard to understand, because the details haven't yet been gone into. However, I think that the essence of the proposal is, in effect, to create a body which would be able to act when the situation requires action to resolve existing problems. This is not to say that it would act in any circumstances beyond those. I don't think that anyone is envisioning a government like the US government, where various presidents enact whatever proposals they deem necessary. It is a streamlined, representative way to enable necessary actions to be made in circumstances as required. There are additional proposals as well, but those are pretty much secondary to the main proposal.

It has been said that "this is not the wiki way." Perhaps it has not been to date. But I also very seriously doubt that "the wiki way" is to have people wringing their hands about how there is no consensus to pull the fire alarm even though the building is clearly burning down. I do not doubt that any policies or guidelines enacted by this group, were it to exist, would be and should be altered. In fact, I imagine they would be changed rather frequently and substantially. However, "the wiki way", as it has evidently been to date, cannot be said to be such endless argument about whether something should be done, and then realizing that while the discussion has continued the problem has possibly gone too far to be easily countered.

I believe that this organization has come too far, due to the remarkable, valuable input of so many, for us to allow it to collapse because of the inabiility of editors to ever agree to anything. We cannot stand by and argue about whether getting water violates policy when the city we have all worked so hard to build burns down. Every voluntary organization goes through "growing pains", this one included. It seems to me that the opposition to this proposal is primarily from those who, for whatever reason, have decided to, metaphorically, reject such growth. They are as individuals free to do so. However, I do not believe that they have the power or authority to reject ideas which seem to be necessary for the continuing functioning of the project out of hand, simply because they seek to declare "consensus" problems on the second day of the idea's proposal. No one has yet gone into any details, and the details are extremely important. I think it would be best for all of us if we withheld any final judgements until such time as those proposals are concretely made. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So emergency de-policy or make-policy? No thanks. Policy is for general situations, not exceptional stand alone events. Exceptional stand alone events are exactly what IAR may be used for. Those times which policy doesn't cover the situation; correctly, exactly, or at all. - jc37 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Partially. More accurately, maybe finally getting around to creating a policy regarding an idea which has been discussed, possibly more than once, in the past, but where a formal policy was never developed because people thought "it'll never happen" or "it won't happen often enough for there to be a policy." And I can't see de-policying ever happening. Most policies have been created over time, and there is no reason to think that those policies would be made redundant. Maybe a better metaphor would be placing a ill-formed bandage over a wound to prevent further damage. It would certainly be true that the bandage would be replaced and treatment possibly change later. And I cannot imagine, as stated in the bottom section, that it would happen very often. My personal guess would be that, basically, when it becomes clear, either by statements of ArbCom, Jimbo, the legal office, or potentially other parties that guidelines or policies need to be created to prevent a problem from recurring, this group would be able to create such a basic policy. Once created, it would be subject to change, like all other policies, up to and including being marked historical if required. Maybe they'd be most similar to legislative aides, who basically write bills but don't enact or regulate them. Once it's written, and the proximate reason for its creation is at least addressed in some form, the community would be given a period of time to address any concerns they might have, probably a month or so?, and then if there is consensus a final, minimal, draft of the policy is created. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(de-dent) - So policy "clerks"? Sounds like a group of scriveners. "Here, we've decided that we should have a policy regarding X. Write it up for us." Would they have their own wiki for this, or could anyone join in on the fun? : )

(A bit of levity, it's been a long discussion : ) - jc37 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been long, and God knows I haven't done anything to help that. But, yeah, basically just that, a group to write policies with community input when it becomes clear that such policies are required. I don't think there would be the need for a separate wiki, though. I don't think any of us would want anything like a presidential administration, which could change taxes or declare war, just write the minimal policy required for circumstances. Although if we ever do declare war, Citizendium had bloody well better watch out. ;) John Carter (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it looks like you aren't understanding the proposal either. It's starting to appear that what is being asked for is a parliament, of sorts, which will simply create policy (rather than create policy pages, as you're suggesting). That's not what I had envisioned, I must admit, when first joining in this discussion. (I'm seriously considering writing up my proposal, though. The more I think about it, the better it sounds.) - jc37 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the parliamentary appearance is due to the fact that we would want to be able to ensure that all relevant viewpoints are included in the proposal, which would logically include people from as many different, potentially relevant fields, as possible. And, for what it's worth, believe it or not, the Congress of the US was set up initially to basically act in substantially the same way, only acting when it had become necessary, and otherwise basically engaging in endless debate but never actually doing anything. The problem right now is that we've got the last part, endless debate but never actually doing anything, down to an art, but haven't gotten the need to occasional act part down very well. And I don't myself see a difference here between policy and policy pages, just like I don't see a difference between law and passed legislative bills. Any policy by definition would be in policy pages. I think we're all too used to the busy, "hands-on" nature of modern legislatures to really grasp the idea of a "caretaker" government, but I think that the latter is what is really being proposed here. The problem is the reason for the proposal is the fact that we haven't to date done a particularly good job as "caretakers" in all cases, so that it looks like we're talking about an "activist" government, when all that Kirill and others seem to have initially proposed is a "adequately activist" government, i.e., one which has done more than we have done to date in certain required areas. And I personally wouldn't mind seeing as many proposals as possible. The more the better, in fact. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion now. (At least one of them.) I think you'll find rather strong opposition to the idea that "policy" = "policy page". The arguement is that "policy" exists whether there is a page about it or not. That's my whole point in my proposal. The PRV committee would determine whether or not the page in question measures up to actually represent policy. That's it. It doesn't create policy, but merely be a group which would review pages, and determine if they represent policy. If you want to create a proposal to have some volunteer scriveners group set up to help write up what is already determined to be policy, that's cool too. Sounds like a WikiProject to me, though... - jc37 01:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a fundamental disagreement there, then. As I see it, the problem we're trying to fix isn't writing policy pages, it's writing policy. If there is a consensus then writing the page is easy. It's the cases where there isn't a consensus, so there is no policy at present, that we need a group that can step in and write the policy (based on their own judgement, guided by the community). If there is a consensus then this group would just need to tick the box and that's it - the policy pages could be written by the community as they are now. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so people really would like to resurrect the proposal system that we thought was buried by now. *sigh* Back to square one, I guess. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Jc37, I think we would have to know where this policy which isn't written down could be found if it isn't written down, and how it could be known to be policy. It seems to be declaring that there are one or more "unwritten policies" which have to be followed. Taking recourse to such unwritten policies can be problematic, because they are, almost by definition, impossible to revise, because no one is entirely sure what they are in the first place, and are certainly, at the least, among the ones which noobs would be least familiar with, having never seen them anywhere. Now, this isn't saying that each policy would necessarily be a separate page, but rather that they would all be mentioned in at least one policy page. But if there is anything which is really almost explicitly contrary to a transparent system of governance, it is taking recourse to "policies" which aren't necessarily specifically defined, aren't written down anywhere, and thus can't be revised, because their exact nature isn't clearly known. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposals system was written down. The consensus system is also written down (it covers much of the project namespace ;-) ). the only problem might be that there's no real page that ties everything together for when you're maintaining policy pages. Then again, it's no different from other wiki-process, so why should there be a separate description?

So everything is right out there on the surface and in plain sight and probably quite familiar to you. Then again, you know how familiarity breeds contempt and all... people might simply be trying to look too deeply? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'm at least suggesting

The way I was seeing this discussion heading was towards a committee which would act as a whole in the same way an admin acts in closing a DRV discussion.

I was and am opposed to the bureaucratic creation of subcommittees and the like, since we have the entire Wikipedian community to support the committee (the exact same way the community supports/aids in arbcomm discussions).

This is not the creation of a parliament or congress!

This is why I am in support of a small committee (comparable to the number of regular closers at DRV or the membership of arbcomm).

And this committee should be allowed to exercise their judgement and discernment the way arbcom does, as opposed to how bureaucrats are straight-jacketed in closing RfAs.

And since this committee would be elected by the community, and that vetting process would presumably determine that they are likely well--founded in policy and process, I was also suggesting that this committee would be useful as a knowledge-base, a source that arbcomm could draw upon in reagrds to interpretation of policy.

Now if I'm mistaken in this, and this proposal is about the creation of a parliament or congress, then I'll likely step over and join KB in soundly rejecting such a proposal as contrary to the foundation's principles.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is probably somewhere inbetween. I think the assembly should do more than just determine consensus (you say they would be allowed to exercise their own judgement, but I'm not sure to what extent you mean - I would have them working entirely with their own judgement), but they should certainly be guided by community discussion. If you try and have it so they determine consensus but with a little leeway in how they do that you'll just end up with the same thing as happened on RfA - people complain so much whenever the exact vote count isn't followed that crats have no choice by the just count votes. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. No abitrary straight-jackets allowed. - jc37 20:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Committees should not exist if the resolutions they make are binding. The same people calling the shots leads to corruption. If we are going to have a body that makes binding decisions, I'd like to see one that has different people for each "case", or whatever it maybe. Something like a Jury system, even. Monobi (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) - The resolutions may be "binding", but they also may be subject to change. Note that arbcomm is not held to precedent for these and other reasons. - jc37 20:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A jury system would be good. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wondering if you'd consider arbcomm to be a "jury of our peers". - jc37 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If decisions aren't binding (but subject to change, of course), there's not really any point making them. A jury might work, but the logistics are far more complicated than for an elected body. As long as the elections are frequent enough (I say 6 months, perhaps with 3 tranches yielding 18 month terms), we should avoid the problem Monobi points out of the ruling body becoming corrupt. --Tango (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we have no groups with non-binding resolution, but instead we shouldn't have committees of the same people for 3 years who call the shots. Monobi (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC used to be called "no binding decisions". [2] . The discussion page there is very interesting too. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I was using "binding" to indicate the short term, current case focus of arbcom, not as a long-term, "permanent" remedy". (Clarifying for others, because I think KB understood already : ) - jc37 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, with your view, it might work...but you'd not have random people, or experts, but elected people, right? (random people and experts have both been known to be able to write complex things like encyclopedias. Elected people have been known to set PI=3. )

I'm also not sure that your position is actually what's intended here.

I'm actually quite happy about using consensus editing on policy. It's really good to be able to eat our own dog food to be able to update documentation about ourselves. If we can't eat our own dog food, then that's not really a show of confidence is it? :-P

I'm quite happy to teach others how to do consensus/wiki based editing, including on policy. I've written documentation on how that works out, and I even intend to do a talk about it at Wikipedia:Lectures. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(random people and experts have both been known to be able to write complex things like encyclopedias. Elected people have been known to set PI=3. )

Though it has an interesting flawed logic in how the comparison works, it's still an absolutely great comment : ) - jc37 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The italics comments are intended to be more whimsical. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And actually, I'd like to presume that we'd be "electing" Wikipedia policy "experts". We're just using the elective to vett them. (And yes, I realise I'm turning a blind eye to more than a few of the problems with elections : ) - jc37 03:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Abolish ArbCom

ArbCom needs to go. It is a source of much "wiki-corruption" and does nothing more than create extra problems. Great example is with privatemusings, and users supposedly proxy editing for him (as well as others), while he (and others) was/were banned by ArbCom. This just lead to pointless edit warring over nothing important and sometimes caused good edits to be reverted. Also, ArbCom ignores all sense of community input. They might say "email arbcom for suggestions about who should be a checkuser" or whatever, but in the end, as revealed by the Arbcom mailing list leak about Majorly, they just do what they personally want. Finally, ArbCom is illegitimate. It wasn't created by the community, it was created by a person with no particular authority. If there is ONE thing that comes out of this, I'd like to see ArbCom removed. MedCom on the other hand, can stay, because it isn't binding nor forced. Monobi (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Arbcom was ratified by the community in 2004. The checkuser thing is a red herring - checkusers have never been appointed by community discussion, and unless a consensus develops to do so, the arbitrators are acting properly in appointing checkusers using their own discretion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was not created by what the community wanted, but by what was dictated. Also, just because checkusers might not of previously been elected by the community doesn't mean we can't start now. The current system is failing. Monobi (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it was approved by the community. If they didn't agree with it, nobody was forcing them to vote in favor of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

30 votes supporting over 4 years ago is hardly what I call a community. Monobi (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're free to try to find consensus to reverse the ratification, but the approval appears to be in order. Simply because Arbcom was approved before some editors began editing doesn't mean it is illegitimate. But my suspicion is that if there was a vote today Arbcom would again be approved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 4 years ago, 30 votes was a pretty decent turnout. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What would you replace ArbCom with? We need some way of dealing with behavioural issues when we can't establish a community consensus. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Replace them with a system that has minimal interference with normal wiki activity (specific behavioral problems with specific users, not general behavior) and that system should be wanted by the community, with the community able to remove it at anytime. Monobi (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You've just described ArbCom... --Tango (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some proposed systems out there that might be more scalable. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it works ok, for the most part. Though I have to agree, 3 years is a long time to stand a post here, especially from a single election.

(This parenthetical suggestion is merely a suggestion for arbcomm: 2 year terms might be a move in the right direction.) - jc37 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 3 years is a long time - what percentage of Arbitrators have completed their elected terms? Not many, I think... --Tango (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think 8-month terms would be plenty long. Shorter terms are better for accountability as well as being important to get busy but wise people to commit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer my own question - it looks like 2 people have completed a 3 year elected term and at least 6 have resigned early (could be more - it's difficult to tell from the timeline who was elected to a 3 year term in the first place). So we're talking about at least an 78% drop out rate! --Tango (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom needs fixed. It's broken. Changing the length of terms won't fix this entirely, although it is certainly a start. Monobi (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide more detail? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)If we shorten the term length, we also have to make the election process less horrible (though we should do that even if we don't change anything else). Mr.Z-man 02:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at some point I said some choice words about the arbcom election procedure, and never ran again. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Eww, why would you want to run in the first place :P Mr.Z-man 02:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't too bad at one point ... --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of the community

I was curious a few days ago just how many active users there are. I used the recent changes logging information for a one-month period to generate a table showing how many logged-in users edited the site. (Note: because I was lazy, all IP editors are counted as a single userid in the table.)

Unique userids with a minimum recentchanges count
Bots excluded
March 20 2008 to April 19 2008
Edits → Namespace(s) ↓	1	10	50	100	500	1000	5000
All	234,899	33,411	10,230	6,274	1,666	705	37
Main	150,532	26,884	7,916	4,585	853	284	13
Main and talk	157,037	28,718	8,622	5,121	1,059	368	18
WP and WT	17,160	3,514	1,213	659	48	7	1

The impression I take is that there are far more than the fabled "500 editors" active here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

<grin> ... Now... try a histogram of number of editors per page. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You've made that point before - we're not talking about content, we're talking about policy. It doesn't matter if only 2 people ever edit Pokemon (number and article chosen at random), lots of people are interested in each major policy. --Tango (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your wish, granted. The drop off is not as fast as might be expected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of unique userids per page
Main namespace only
Minimum # of userids	1	5	10	15	20	30	40	50	100	250	350
Count of pages	1,030,627	54845	14586	6511	3642	1408	651	320	34	2	0
Minimum # of userids	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Count of pages	1,030,627	344,354	156,481	86,364	54,845	38,500	28,661	22,296	17,784	14,586

That is pretty steep - the drop off from 1 to 5 is 95%! It's not too step from then on, but it doesn't need to be. 95% of pages edited in that month were edited by only one person, that's a lot! Kim is completely right about the statistics, they just aren't relevant to this discussion. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people can be right about statistics simultaneously. Yes, many pages were edited by only one person. On the other hand, 55k were edited by 5 people and 14k by 10 people. I'm not worried much about the pages only edited by one person, since any system works fine when you're alone. It's the pages that have multiple editors that interest me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but it's still not relevant to this discussion. --Tango (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in complete agreement here, if you're saying that those 33k users who each made 10 article edits all are affected by policy even if they edit different articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost - it's not "affected by" that's important but rather "interested in being involved in". In the same way that the number of readers of an article doesn't affect how easy it is to establish a consensus of those editing it, the number of people affected by a policy doesn't affect how easy it is to establish a consensus of those writing the policy. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of people affected by any change to a policy page is 0. The number of people interested in updating a policy page at any moment in time (not counting spurious meatball:ExpandScope escapades :-P) is actually quite low, from what I've observed myself by eyeball. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (what do your own statistics show, CBM?).

Hang on! Who made 5000 edits to the WP and WT namespaces in one month? Whoever it is needs professional help!! --Tango (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, sorry about that. I didn't remove userid 0, which is shared by all IP editors, from the table. So if you really want to limit it to just logged-in users you have to subtract 1 from each cell. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So based on dunbar, we hypothesized that if there were only <150 people per page, we didn't need (additional) governance at the time. We presented that at Wikimania Boston. That was several years ago. Apparently, that still holds. :-) Wikipedia still operates the same way it did several years ago. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not listening, are you? We're not talking about content, we're talking about policy. Content can and will still be determined by consensus. --Tango (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question - how does the number of editors per article relate to the process by which we create policy? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not my problem actually. You argued that wikipedia was becoming too large and that we needed to change the way we governed it. Now you've done the numbers, and based on what we know about communities, it seems that the wiki can practically run itself. (I sometimes have the idea that it continues to run despite the community these days ;-) )

I didn't make the initial claim, I just showed that your claim was demonstrably incorrect. :-) The wikipedia dynamics are still the same as ever.

Pushing my point further: nothing has changed. People claim that something must have changed every year, but every year, no change. :-P

Pushing yet further: Why do you want to change the way wikipedia functions in such a fundamental way, when there is absolutely no grounds to do so, and where it has been demonstrated by many years of success that the model actually works better than anything that has ever come before?

Well alright, if you came up with some radically new proposal we've never heard of before, and that looked scalable and promising, well I'd certainly give it the time of day. I love that kind of thing! :-) But that's not what you're doing here.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following. Nobody is claiming that it's hard to work on an article with 2 other editors, or proposing to change the model for article writing. The claim is that the policy-creation process is broken. The numbers I ran above don't seem (to me) to reflect on the policy-creation process at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this the policy creation process where you try to tell other people what they're supposed to do? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not I; I have been arguing for a long time that policies are descriptive, and not binding, and that in any case we don't even have to read them. However, I find it harder and harder to make that argument with a straight face, since it has become a minority viewpoint. Many editors already feel that our policies are normative documents, and opinion is shifting even further in that direction. As I am somewhat resigned to that mentality taking over, I would like to see a system that can handle normative policies in a sensible, reasonable, responsible way. (By the way, as a personal favor, could you use fewer smilies in responses to me?) — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We just killed the previous normative policy crap 6-12 months ago. Then we finally manged to get rid of the non-negotiable clause recently (people were using it to non-negotiate their way out of NPOV :-P ) ... normative policies totally suck. Why would we ever want to adopt a known broken system when we have a clueful system in place? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask me. I'm saying I think the change of viewpoint is already underway; ask the people who support it why they do. My view is that if I am going to be stuck under these normative policies I would rather see them developed in a reasonable way. Note that I didn't propose this change, I just support it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I don't want to be stuck under normative policies. You don't want to be stuck under normative policies. I think the logical conclusion is that both of us should be acting to stop normative policies. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that policy is descriptive of what people actually do is great - as long as everyone does the same thing, ie. as long as we have a consensus. The site is now too large for that to generally be the case (we'd have no need for ArbCom if everyone agreed on policy, would we?), so normative policies are the only option. --Tango (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give an example to help you. Take a look at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll - we had nearly 1000 people take part in that attempt to make policy. 1000 is bigger than 150... --Tango (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's all stay friendly here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

<Slow... evil... grin...> I totally opposed that poll, you can look through the page histories and see me doing it. My argument there (IIRC) was that making a poll there would end up as no consensus and would kill the whole thing. The reason that would happen is because making a large poll pulls in more than 150 people, making it impossible to discuss anything anymore.

Sound familiar? I then proposed we try use the wiki-editing method instead, and take things slow and one step at a time. Sound familiar some more? ;-)

Some of the people there were too think-headed to listen, and thus they blithely went ahead and killed their own proposal.

So now you'd like to use that *against* my position? :-D --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC) [3], some comments why the poll won't provide useful information., I'm sure I made comments earlier too, but there's a lot of ATT archives I shan't go through now.

My viewpoint is that polls like that will become more and more inevitable as more and more people take an interest in policies. But I agree with you that the polls never accomplish anything. That's why I would like to see a system that does accomplish something. I'm not sure how you would manage to replace any established policy with another (regardless of merit) by just editing the policy page; there would always be a group of editors who would oppose the change. Indeed, this is now the S.O.P. on many policy pages I see. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those polls are far far from inevitable. The community dynamics have not changed. Your own numbers show they have not changed. Why do you argue like they have changed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC) if the SOP on some particular page has become to block consensus. Try WP:BRD first, or better yet, remove those folks from wikipedia entirely. They're not here to help with the wiki, after all. If bullies prevent you from forming consensus, why would you want to choose the side of the bullies?

Nicely constructed, but still fallacious : ) - jc37 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did I put the fallacy? Let me correct it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence did you in. Presumptive, prescriptive, and all that. - jc37 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Urk. <ponder> --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that, prior to the poll of doom, WP:ATT was built and instituted based on the consensus of the editors present at the time. The problem was that more than 1000 editors became interested in the policy and therefore most of them felt left out of the discussion. The accusations flying about of trying to "sneak in" a new policy are exactly why trying to craft major new policies by consensus flat out don't work; WP:ATT had already lost any chance at wiki-wide consensus before the poll even began. Nifboy (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Such worries are easily soothed. You are just polite to everyone that comes along and cheerfully point out that consensus can change, and please pull up a chair and join the fun! People can try really hard, but they can't feel left out for long like that. :-)

In the case of ATT, a couple of people who had worked on the policy actually decided they wanted that poll. Oops.;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with ATT is that Jimbo decided to kill it. I never figured out why, but that was that; it was never going to be possible to recover once he yanked it for "discussion". — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Organizational behavior 101: People are more likely to accept a decision if they've had a hand in the process. Because discussion can only involve so many people, only so many people can readily accept something like ATT, which was in the works for, what, four months? Nifboy (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia governance 101: They don't have to follow the decision., and they can join the process at any time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So what happens 3-5 five years from now when we may add a 0 to the end of the number of editors? Sorry, Kim--we agree often, but discussion for the sake of discussion is a waste of time. Discussion as a means to an end is meritous. Deciding things by voting/polling is not a bad thing. We voted to ratify Arbcom (probably should be re-ratified every x years, to be frank), we voted on WP:3RR, we voted on the main page, we vote for Arbcom (it's a vote--Jimmy's authority is because we let him have it only, now that he has no ownership legal authority in Wikipedia and he would be bounced if he screwed the community and ignored our votes), we vote for admins, we vote for beurocrats, we vote for stewards, and we certainly vote for the WMF board in a pure election. I looked at that ATT poll; the problem there was every busybody apparently just had to have their say in the structure of the vote. The "Delegate Panel", my vote for the name of this proposed body, could also be used to build these major votes fairly. What works today is certainly not going to work tomorrow. Let's be forward-looking. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 14:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All the votes you mention are outside the wiki-structure. The 3RR vote is one of those exceptions that confirm the rule (and there was already consensus for WP:EW before then, which is probably why 3RR vote worked at all.)

3-5 years from now if we add another 0 to the number of editors (rate of growth is slowing), the wiki will still have the same structure as before. Wikis scale very very well, (see the statistics thread on this page). This scalability is part of why the English wikipedia (as one of the largest collaborative projects in the world) is so successful.

The structure you propose scales rather poorly, because it introduces certain bottlenecks that were not present before.

If you really want to be able to accommodate an order of magnitude more editors, you will have to radically do away with committees, central pages, and votes. This is what I have been working on, slowly, st ep by step by st ep by st e p by s t e p, over the years.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) list not exhaustive, also not in chronological order.

Same old same old? Yes. And for a reason.

I apologize for the length of this, but ... unfortunately, I don't have time to cut it down.

A few months back, WP:PRX was proposed as an experiment, to set up a system whereby a user could name a proxy by creating a proxy file in their own user space; a proxy table could then be created by transcluding the proxy files. The proposal actually did not set up any specific applications, but the full name of it was Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. The idea, basically, is that if some users name a proxy, and those proxies name proxies, etc., that one can estimate how many users a particular proxy represents, ultimately, by following the proxy table recursively. "Represents" is very rough, no proposal was made (nor did I support) any idea that the proxies were formal representatives; rather, they were simply users trusted by other users to be likely to make a decent decision when the user does not personally participate, and then that information can be used in various ways.

However, this method has, outside, been proposed by some for governmental applications. An interesting and very old proposal was made by Lewis Carroll in the 1880s, what is now called Asset Voting, which would see its best application for proportional representation, Dodgson (Carroll) was proposing it for that. If a candidate is not elected (i.e., does not get a defined quota of votes), the candidate may, by negotiation or otherwise, recast the votes; also a candidate who is holding more votes than necessary for a seat may recast any excess votes. What has been noticed is that the initial "candidates" become public electors, who deliberatively form an assembly. The process has no losers, per se, votes aren't wasted (except for the "dregs," which could be very small, and even with those there is a way to make the assembly *totally* democratic, i.e., fully representative.)

Anyway, WP:PRX was immediately tagged Rejected, apparently based on a false idea that it was (1) about voting, and (2) that it would create a bureaucracy, like AMA and Esperanze. Both of these were false. PRX was just a proposal that we experiment with what happens if editors name proxies, function to be determined *later*. That is, we can suggest functions, some are pretty obvious, but ....

PRX could create an assembly representing all those who decided to participate. The problem of scale is well-known in democracy, Wikipedia is not the first organization to face it! What has often been missed, however, is that the *essential* problem of scale is one of noise; try to find consensus in large groups, and the number of people participating either grows to the point where there is too much noise, or the number of people participating does *not* grow and a small group runs the organization. Which sometimes works. The problem is that sometimes it doesn't work, and, indeed, there can come to be a conflict of interest between the individuals who come to be in positions of influence and power and the general "membership." It is very natural, and it is not due to greed or power hunger. But it also creates a gap, with the general membership feeling more and more like "they" -- the in-group -- run the show....

So, classically, large organizations that started as peer democracies (Wikipedia was *roughly* that -- democracy does not mean "voting"), devolve into oligarchies or what can amount to a kind of oligarchy, a "representative democracy." But representative democracies, if they are organized through fixed elections for terms, can themselves develop quite a gap between the "people" and the "government." There is a way around this: the problem with direct democracy wasn't voting, per se, but deliberation. If too many people try to deliberate, the noise becomes too much. Voting, likewise, places too much of a burden on those whose interest and available time is insufficient to be informed on the issues. I wish I had a nickle for every AfD vote I've seen that was apparently based on a 30-second review of the nomination. If that. And most people just stay away.... With delegable proxy, anyone might still be able to participate, but "votes" can be weighted according to some kind of trust level expressed through the proxy system. And that does not mean that decisions would be made by "voting," decisions could be made just as they are now, by trusted individuals based on the advice that the community provides and their own investigation.

What do we have here, with this page? Just proposed, two days ago, and lots of opinions being expressed. Already an attempt to place a Rejected tag. How long does it take to actually consider a proposal? I can say this: if the number of participants is unlimited, it can take forever. It doesn't take forever, to be sure, to "Reject" a proposal, all it takes is enough people willing to make a snap judgment and vocally express it. WP:PRX wasn't just "Rejected," a group of editors tried to eradicate it, thoroughly. The person who proposed it -- a bit impulsive, to be sure -- was blocked, and, underneath all the immediate causes was a sense that he wanted to change things. Disruptive, that intention is. So ... I suggest that if we want to form an Assembly, we can. There is nothing stopping us. But if we try to do it on-wiki, we will see a repeat of the contention and endless and tendentious debate that has happened again and again. Delegable proxy can form an assembly, ad-hoc, without elections. The assembly can function in different sizes as needed; it's a characteristic of delegable proxy that a small group can represent a large one, and "small" can be very small, if needed, and "large" can grow without limit, at least the present human population isn't too large. TANSTAAFL: make the assembly too small, it becomes less representative because relatively more compromise must be made, make it too large, it becomes cumbersome.

However, basic rule: assemblies make their own rules. The U.S. Constitution, for example, does not specify the rules for the House of Representatives for the Senate; those bodies make their own rules. If we simply start naming proxies, and start a mechanism for those who wish to participate -- i.e., *work on it, not merely oppose it* -- we can create an assembly, in short order, that would represent the participants, empowered as much as they care to empower it. None of this takes anything away from those who don't participate. This Assembly, initially, would merely advise. Whom would it advise? Whoever wants to listen! It would advise its own participants with regard to cooperation in connection with the project, and it would advise others who might be interested in what a broad (or even narrow) peer organization of editors concluded. As consensus.

Such an assembly, at least initially, would have no power to bind anyone, it would not, if it follows my advice, make decisions except trivially about its own process. Rather, it would report consensus, after deliberation, and it could deliberate in small groups.

Is Wikipedia ready for this? Definitely not several months ago, and I'd be surprised to find that it is now. But I'd love to be wrong! In any case, interested? Email me off-wiki. The fact is that two people communicating and cooperating, seeking consensus, can do more than one, and three more than two. --Abd (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

be aware, this user is trying to form a circle of meatpuppets to force in his proxy editing (or the "sockmasters charter") - someone he contacted off wiki confirmed this to me. --87.115.8.27 (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

oh and he has an active meatpuppet in Sarsaparilla (blocked but still editing under various accounts) - the general pattern is that one of the two proposes some policy change and the other turns up to support it - be watchful for new accounts turning up here to !vote and support this. --87.115.8.27 (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed additions

I believe something along the lines of the following could be reasonably added.

"Wikipedia has always been an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. The freedom to edit expressed in that statement will remain a cornerstone of wikipedia. 'That government is best which governs least' is a position which will be taken if reform would take place. There would be no intention to create any more policies or guidelines than are absolutely required by circumstances. However, there are now, and have been in the past, situations when policies or guidelines needed to be enacted, and with some speed. It is for these instances, and these instances alone, which the policy making body is being considered for creation. Other events, recently and in the more distant past, have also indicated that it would be useful for other, more formal procedures and practices to be established in some instances, to prevent the possibility of abuse of the system. The fundamental goals and ideals of wikipedia would remain the same should this proposal be enacted. However, it is clear that some changes are clearly needed, and it is only to address those required changes that this proposal is being made."

OK, I know I repeat myself more than a little, and that I tend to use too many words as often as not, but I hope at least the idea is clear enough. John Carter (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, more formal procedures and practices typically allow easier abuse of a system. This seems to be counter-intuitive to some people, but that doesn't make it less true ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

more formal procedures and practices typically allow easier abuse of a system - I disagree. In the real world, the rule of law is prized for a reason; having formal rules, which must be obeyed by everyone (even those in power), ensures that those in power are held to account and cannot act arbitrarily. If punishment is handed out without reference to the rules, then people cannot reasonably conform their conduct to the rules and thereby escape sanction. (See the work of Joseph Raz for more on this topic.)

In the specific context of Wikipedia, it is a lot easier for a new user if they can just look at a page of rules and find out how things work. If the rules are unwritten, or made up by the admins as they go along, then new users can find themselves blocked without realising that they did anything wrong. (This actually happened to me on Wiktionary, where I created an account some time ago as wikt:User:Eric the Gnome in order to see how newbies were treated. But that's another story for another time.) Policies and guidelines are therefore inherently a good thing, though they should also be kept in check. Walton^One 08:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Documentation of best practices is always a good thing. I agree so far. The part I disagree with is that having strict, prescriptive policies is a good thing. A good example is declaring things "non-negotiable". While several policies were marked "non-negotiable", people started "non-negotiating" their way out of following NPOV, for instance. Oops ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know quite what you mean there; NPOV is indeed a non-negotiable policy (and rightly so, since it defines the character of the encyclopedia). Obviously, in practice, the way NPOV should be applied to some contentious topics is debatable and negotiable (the evolution-creation controversy, for instance), but this doesn't mean people are rejecting the policy. I've never, so far, seen anyone justify their changes to an article by asserting that we don't need to follow NPOV (rather, they tend to assert that their opponent is not following NPOV).

The point of having strict, prescriptive policies is that everyone is bound by them, from the most experienced admin to the newest editor; and if an admin violates policy, they can be held to account. It's exactly the same principle as having strict, prescriptive laws in real life. Do you think the United States Constitution should be downgraded to a "documentation of best practice"? Power, wherever it is found, has to be held in check. Walton^One 11:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim seems to be me to be maybe arguing a case which no one else is arguing against. There is no intention that I know of for this to become a bureaucracy. However, that is not the same as saying that there is not a need for more policies than we currently have. One of the current, unfortunate, cases before ArbCom is about a case where an admin, probably with no intended unacceptable motives, acted in a way which just about everybody else agrees was not in the best interests of wikipedia. In such a case, a policy or guideline (I personally question how much functional difference there is) relevant to an admin acting in a situation where he could be perceived as having a COI would be one that just about everyone could agree with. A few policies/guidelines have been suggested to deal with such situations, because there is no reason to think they would not recur if such policies/guidelines do not exist to mitigate them.

If ArbCom, Jimbo, or, potentially, a clear consensus on one or more of the Admin noticeboards indicate that there is just cause for a policy/guideline to be created, then I can't see any reason why one cannot be proposed. If through examination that policy or guideline should be found to be either inherently unenforcable or otherwise problematic, then clearly that policy or guideline will be rejected. Also, if someone were to violate one of these polices or guidelines, with extant mitigating circumstances, there wouldn't necessarily be serious consequences, although that possibility would clearly exist.

And I don't know of anyone suggesting that anything but the most core policies are necessarily "non-negotiable", because any policy can be and generally is changed. In fact, creation of such a policy board would probably help ensure that the extant policies and guidelines are more likely to be kept "up to date". With a sufficiently broad base, it could also help ensure that these new policies/guidelines don't create more harm in some area than good in general.

I don't imagine anyone is thinking of this as being a major editorial responsibility, to the degree that being a member of ArbCom is. With sufficient members to divide the responsibilities, it would leave most free to do other activities most of the time. But it would also permit us to not have to repeatedly invoke policies or guidelines which may not clearly be appropriate in the situation, like invoking IAR in cases of "emergencies" or problematic situations which could be and are anticipated, and should be addressed, but haven't been yet because there hasn't been sufficient focused attention to the matter for a policy or guideline to become enacted. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kim seems to be me to be maybe arguing a case which no one else is arguing against.". Tango argues that we should abolish consensus. Walton argues here that we should adopt hard rules. Together, this would be the start of some of the most sweeping changes since the Nupedia project set up a wiki. (And quite frankly, it would be a reversal). --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Then your comments should probably be directed clearly toward them, rather than posted as a response in a thread which kind of indicates the exact contrary. And I would expect, in the initial stages of any discussion, there would be any number of ideas. That is to be expected, and probably even encouraged, as part of an open process. But to write a response to one proposal, which seems to be expressing concerns regarding the possible consequences of other proposals, strikes me as, well, odd. And I read WaltonOne's statement above, which dealt exclusively with NPOV, which basically already is a non-negotiable policy, although the exact phrasing of it is and always should be open to question and amended, as circumstances require. And to put together just those two ideas, out of all that have yet been proposed, and say that, on the basis of a minority of comments on a new proposal, the proposal should be rejected, is at best dubious thinking. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Another approach

I think a key approach is missing from the page, which is the actual current consensus process. Might want to add that. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it hardly needs to be proposed again, does it? ;-)

More to the point, Wikipedia's consensus model has certain failure scenarios that the community has been unable to address by mere incremental modification. The consensus-building process inherently relies on the BRD model—in other words, gradual change is achieved by a series of changes which are contested and individually resolved. The key here is the "Revert" portion; if it is replaced with something other than merely a reversal of the original change—such as, say, a block or desysopping—the model begins to break down quite rapidly. (Or, alternatively: the model works only insofar as the initial bold change can be performed without costing the user making it their ability to participate in the discussion and/or the project.)

This is a very significant practical issue with policies that govern (or describe, if you prefer) the use of certain privileged access rights. Ordinary policies—which is to say, those dealing with editor actions—are fairly amenable to such individual-driven change. Policies dealing with administrative tools are less so; people being unduly bold with them tend to wind up desysopped. At the far end of the scale, the policies dealing with things like oversight and checkuser access are effectively set in stone, since any deviation from them invites all manner of highly unpleasant consequences.

Consider, for example, the current debate on whether inactive admins should have their access to the tools removed. Such a policy (not policy document, but rather actual in-practice policy) cannot feasibly develop through the BRD approach; no steward would "boldly" desysop a few users merely because they thought it a good idea. And so any attempt at change devolves to establishing consensus a priori—which, for a change of this magnitude, draws in more people than can actually come to a reasonable consensus through ordinary discussion, leading to the predictable no-consensus referendum outcome.

(More generally, one can argue about whether certain policy should lean towards the prescriptive rather than the descriptive side of the spectrum—conduct policy, if made truly descriptive, would lean rather too much towards an unpleasant lowest common denominator—but that's really secondary to the practical issues with the current model.) Kirill 08:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Kirill. The wiki-"consensus" model is fine for editing articles, and it works very well on a small scale. But when we have to co-ordinate policy changes across a vast community with thousands of members, "consensus" doesn't work, and we need a more formal and regulated system. Walton^One 08:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At 2,346,917 articles; 12,895,573 pages; 218,874,408 edits; 782,443 media files (excluding commons); 6,970,823 registered users; of which 1,538 have administrative tools; over a period of 8 years numbers will have changed by the time I hit submit, I kind of like your concept of small scale. O:-) And that's just what has worked up till now. You're arguing it won't continue to work in future? Heh. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC) The same argument was made around the time when we had just 1M articles. I guess we managed the next million without too much trouble. I figure the next million after this will work out too, we're already partway there. "Wikipedia can never work"; "Wikipedia is doomed". Yeah right! :-P

The small scale here is the 4 people discussing some article, as opposed to the large scale discussions of policy. There is an emergent effect that allows those small interactions to scale to something extraordinary of course, unfortunately for policy no similar emergent effect exists. (although I am slightly interested in the old Wikipedia:Delegable proxy scenarios) - cohesion 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, no more "Wikipedia is not a democracy" BS

I hate it when someone says it. Originally, this phrase was meaningful, and the meaning was, "ok, we cannot really tell if people vote twice, so we have to be careful about that, so we cannot decide things by simply voting". But now it's being used as a "victory" argument, when some minority wins, regardless if majority had a different opinion, especially in more subjective matters (and there is lot of them). Also, as in this proposal, it is used as an "obvious statement" which protects the proposal from outcry of admins, who feel democracy is threatening their position (and if you don't believe many many admins feel that way, see informal vote about admin recall of RfA page - large majority of normal users wanted such feature, but large majority of admins were against it).

Wikipedia needs more democracy, that's it. Democracy is a natural extension of consensus model, which works fine for small communities. Some will say that democracy means rule of the majority. Yes, but the only other possibility is rule of the minority. Which one do you prefer? I prefer rule of the majority to rule of the minority, because majority is more probably right and more probably, I will be a member of it. To prefer minority rule over majority rule is very elitist position, contrarian to the spirit of good faith in people on Wikipedia. I know that losing a vote hurts, but if you are reasonable, you will win most of the voting because of the majority rule.

So, I wouldn't bother building a legislative body - they tend to fail in the real world, and will probably fail here too (there is a big difference if you vote for a person and if you vote for an issue, because in the former, you have to implicitly trust that someone, in the latter, you don't have to trust, which is a good thing).

Instead, I would like to see 2 things:

1. Establish very precise rules for decision-making by voting when consensus cannot be reached. This means rules for who exactly is eligible to vote (based on number of edits, say 200, or some other metric - it doesn't have to be perfect, but it does have to be exact), how to make proposals for voting, how the votings have to be announced (so people would know about them), how long they will take and how to penalize the sockpuppets. ArbComm should probably decide contentious votings, and that should be it.

1. Unrelated thing, but also good. Further divide the powers of administrators, so that banning and article deletions/protections has to be done by different people.

Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So you'd like to replace the consensus by a majority? As a member of a consensus group, you have the ability to influence every decision in detail. As a member of a democratic minority, you might not be able to influence a decision at all. So you're essentially proposing that we effectively disenfranchise you in particular situations, with no appreciable gain for yourself. ;-)

Are you sure that that's what you really want? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, that's a false opposition. Consensus and democracy are not opposites. When you have a small organization, where people can take the time to consider the issues and negotiate and resolve disagreements, consensus process can be exhilarating. But as years pass and precedents pile up, not to mention decisions that are made and considered the "status quo," true consensus rules can become highly conservative and oppressive even in small organizations. Wikipedia doesn't generally seek true consensus, but this happens even with the rough consensus that we use. Basically, when the status quo favors an active group, that group can block any changes. Essentially, what started as consensus rule becomes minority rule, where a minority, in the name of consensus, can continue a practice only supported, in fact, by a minority. The conclusion I came to, years ago, was that consensus was *important,* that the degree of consensus found is a measure of the success of the organizational structure, but that, ultimately, the decision of what decisions to make by majority rule and what decisions to make by other processes must bge up to ... the majority. If a majority are foolish, they will impose their ill-considered opinions on the minority. But if they majority is wise, it will respect consensus and seek it. The trick is: how?

In order to function efficiently without becoming a tight oligarchy, routine decision-making must be broadly distributed. This is how Wikipedia works. Decisions are made by rough consensus of those sufficiently interested to participate. It works well. Sometimes. Sometimes not. It is when it does not work well that something else is needed. we have escalating circles of dispute resolution, but they can become mob scenes, deliberation becomes practically impossible, and there is little way to determine if the results actually enjoy consensus. I.e., broad consensus. What happens instead is that increasing numbers of editors become burned out and disgusted with the process, which can take extraordinary energy to make even small decisions. The ideas that my friend introduced here were designed to deal with exactly this problem. It allows ad-hoc estimation of large-scale consensus based on small numbers of participants; it would allow what is basically the same structure as we have to continue to function when it works, with larger-scale involvement only as necessary. It does not introduce any bureaucracy, no elected offices, but, quite possibly, certain new practices and procedures for advising community servants. And for advising the Foundation, when necessary. This is WP:PRX, if the experiment is tried and applied. It is not about making decisions by voting. It's about estimating the consensus that any proposition might enjoy, if everyone had the time to actually become involved and make an informed decision, and it does this without elections or other contested process. Gee, I think it's a great idea. Wonder why so many wanted, immediately, to totally crush it? --Abd (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think Samohyl Jan is essentially right. The traditional nebulous concept of wiki-"consensus" works for a small community where everyone knows each other. It does not work for a project of this size and scale. What ends up happening is that those with power - usually the admins - make the decisions. And as regards policy changes, nothing ever gets done; it's impossible to build a "consensus" from the thousands of active members of the community. If we ratified policy changes by a majority vote, there would at least be some policy changes, and we could start fixing some of our broken processes.

I have been arguing for a long time that we need to end "Wikipedia is not a democracy", in its present form. It should probably be replaced with "Wikipedia is not a nation-state", emphasising the point that we are not primarily a political community, and that the encyclopedia is more important than developing rules of governance for their own sake. But democracy, in the form of majority voting on contentious decisions, is the only reasonable direction that this community can now take. Walton^One 08:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Size arguments thoroughly debunked on this page already :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what's up on the page is a bunch of mildly interesting but not very meaningful statistics. It doesn't really make sense to simultaneously argue that editing a policy page is not prescriptive or significant to the policy itself, but also that the number of people editing that page has any meaningful correlation to the number of people involved in discussion of said policy.

Consider, for example, the blocking policy. It intimately affects hundreds, even thousands of editors every day; it is regularly debated on dozens of pages—user talk pages, noticeboards, arbitration cases; it lies at the root of dramatic conflicts among groups of editors; and yet most of this occurs away from the policy page itself! Certainly, neither the actual blockers nor the actual blockees are likely to be editing the policy (the former because they've presumably found what they needed in it, the latter because they can't). Kirill 08:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I think I haven't been clear enough in explaining what the "size argument" is. The data shows there are somewhere between 10k and 30k active editors on the site, depending on how you measure "active", as well as hundreds of thousands of occasional editors. The "size argument" is that the community has reached an overall size where some sort of representative system is the only responsible and effective way to make difficult decisions. Certainly, if everyone stays away from policy pages then things will look nice, but what that means is that instead of having a responsible, deliberative, representative group writing policy we have a self-selected, and often biased, group doing so. On the other hand, any time even 250 people decide to participate in a single discussion, no consensus is likely to be found.

The number of editors per article isn't relevant to that argument. You continue to claim the size argument is debunked, but I don't think you have actually addressed the argument that is being made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In the response to Samohyl Jan, Kim is right that, by advocating a representative system, individual editors would have less "power" in policy discussions than they do now. But I don't think that corresponds to being "disenfranchised". Any system we set up will need to have very strong provisions to protect significant minorities, and I would be happy if the deliberative group used a more formal consensus process, in which any one member could hold a proposal for discussion indefinitely. But the main concern that I have is the opposite of Kim's. Kim is concerned that a representative group would use policy making as a way to gain power. I am concerned that there are groups of individual editors who already do this, and would prefer to see them replaced with a more responsible and accountable group. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be if it would be a solely representative system. I think this one is being proposed as being one in which representatives ultimately decide, but also one in which the broader community has a period in which it can discuss and express its concerns, much like the current ArbCom setup. That would allow all parties, representatives and otherwise, to have a very clear and noticable say. Regarding the "single-veto" proposal above, I might not go that far. If, however, the "veto" were based on the proposals flawed approach to type of subject or material, I have no doubt that the proposal would be altered to take into account the variations depending on subject, etc. And I agree that, right now, there do seem to be a small number of editors involved in writing policy, partially because the policy proposals aren't as obvious as they could be. By in effect making such policy writing better known, through elections, and probably more active discssions, the policy proposals would probably be better known and, very possibly, get even more input than they get today. But any step to bring it more transparent is probably a good thing, and this would probably help serve that goal. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So you would wish to discard consensus can change too? Ouch.

Also, note that advertising things too widely in a short timespan will basically kill any process (see discussions wrt dunbar's number earlier on this page). Don't Do That.

So if you first drag in more people than you can handle at once, and then try to fix that by tacking on a system to handle them, and then tangle with the problem that that system disenfranchises them to an extent... this is getting rather breathtaking. I think I need to sit down. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Kim: As have been already noted above, democracy and consensus are not opposites, so it's not replacing consensus. Consensus, by narrow definition, is agreement of all parties, so if there was consensus and we would then vote about the proposal, everybody would vote the same. It's hence a special case of majority support, in this case 100% majority. Now in broader definition, it also means accompanied discussion and decision based on merits of the arguments. I don't intend to replace the discussion by voting, in fact, I think the rules should state clearly how long the discussion should take place before voting (but also, after how long discussion there should be voting, if there is disagreement). However, there is a problem - there has to be a body, which ultimately decides which arguments have good merit and which have bad merit. Obviously, if there is no such body, anyone can come along and say that his argument has merit, so there is just chaos. So you need such a body, and it also have to be completely neutral, with no interest in any issue. So the simplest such body is just to take fair aggregation of view of all interested people, ie. decide by voting. Any representation just murkies the idea who actually decides, so I oppose it. If the representatives should always follow the will of those who voted them in, then they are useless - we can as well decide directly, without need to trust them. If not, then the system is not fair, because then they don't represent the interests of whomever voted them in. So I want a direct democratic system because it is simple, fair and transparent.

Also, I would like to point out again as an example the proposal of admin recall. If there would be voting, it would be already decided in favour of recall. But there isn't such process, so anyone can come along and claim this or that proposal doesn't have consensus, because arguments on that side are wrong. In the meantime, we have a system that majority (including me) opposes. It's nice that you talk I am part of the consensus group, when I am not, because there is no consensus, just status quo. I don't see how this would be different (from my perspective) if I were overruled by majority, except that in the latter case, more people would be happy. Samohyl Jan (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I would like to note that the democratic decision is not an end of the world. Fundamental property of democracy is reversibility - every law can be later redone (except laws for democratic process, obviously), if the people wish so. So if some minority would be overruled by majority, there would be a specified period (say, half a year), after which we could vote again about the issue (if, say, 5% people voting previously would want to), and this time, the arguments from minority could convince the majority. So this rule would be in sharp contrast to current practice which says "consensus can change", but doesn't say how to objectively recognize it has changed (for example - if there was 100 people coming, one each week, and saying, I don't like it, and each week, the same group of 50 people says, we like it in the response, is that a change in consensus?). That's precisely why such rules are needed, and majority voting itself is just one of them. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The BLP claim is not true

The BLP claim is not true. There was a community consensus for it. See User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 05#Talk:WP:BLP for details regarding its progress from creation to being policy. While it is true that the timing of its becoming policy was due to a push from Jimbo, none-the-less there was a community consensus for it and in time it would have been standard best practice and then elevated from guideline to policy as a descriptive policy. Jimbo pushing it to move from guideline to policy when he did sped up the process and thus made it a prescriptive policy. But there was community consensus for it and Jimbo's involvement merely sped up the process. "Forced on us from above" is nonsense. I created the initial proposal and I've never been an admin (and don't want to be). WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your archived post there ends with "and its a policy because Jimbo wanted it to be a policy". Conversely, my impression is that WP:ATT is not policy only because Jimbo decided to yank it; if he had supported the policy tag on it, the tag would have remained. But we don't have any system other than Jimbo to promote a disputed proposal to policy; because as long as it's disputed, it won't become policy by consensus. In these situations our "consensus" system comes down to waiting to see which side of the discussion grows tired first, which I find very irresponsible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The context of that archived post was me describing what happened when and why to someone interested in that. Above I flesh out "and its a policy because Jimbo wanted it to be a policy" in the context of a claim that it was forced on us explaining 1)it did have consensus 2}we normally promote a guideline after it becomes standard best practice rather than before 3)I was referring to when not that it was made policy so "and its a policy because Jimbo wanted it to be a policy" should be understood to mean "and it became a policy when it did because Jimbo wanted it to be a policy". WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it wasn't forced on WP out of the blue. Jimbo's seal is more useful for taking something that has significant agreement but not consensus, and convincing those who disagree to back down. I think that happened with the BLP policy but not with ATT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said. Except on BLP rather than getting anyone to back down, his suggestion to make it policy was useful in preventing the creation of an opposition movement in the first place. There never existed significant opposition to BLP which is as David likes to say "a hard assed implementation of the other policies" and as he likes to leave out an insistence on treating living people like living people and not like a building or some other subject of an article (which was Daniel's original complaint - people told him they could edit his article anyway they liked so long as it met wikipedia policies and any harm it caused him was none of their concern). WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is actually quite possible to resolve such disputes rather more rapidly, by defining particular forms of blocking discussion as disruptive and thus blocking those editors (see Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus , User:Dmcdevit/On_edit_warring#Usefulness_of_repeat_protections). This is not the the only way to resolve such situations, just the most expeditious.

Actually, commonly there is merely a dearth of good faith, and resolving that will tend to solve the problem to quite a degree. (The list of documented procedures and manned systems to apply to that problem is rather long, so please forgive me for not linking here. Suffice to say that a little skill at mediation can go a long way. :-)

This way of approaching the problem can be and is already being used, and is also happens to be rather less invasive than turning the entire wiki-model on its head.

Which policy pages do you currently have the problem on?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not saying it's the case here, but I have often noticed that the people complaining loudest about consensus being a waiting game, are actually involved in causing the problem in the first place. (This is statistically intuitive: the person who is {unintentionally} responsible for certain kinds of situation will tend to encounter it rather more often than others. ;-P )

What looks like 'blocking consensus' to one person may look like a good-faith objection to another. I don't see it as feasible to start blocking large swaths of editors in order to get some change I prefer moved into policy, especially sice I can be wrong sometimes.

One example at the moment, on which I am not involved, is the possible change to permit BLP articles to be deleted if there is no consensus to keep at an AFD. There are strong arguments on both sides there, so neither side is acting in bad faith. What we want to happen there is for a group of editors to carefully weigh our encyclopedic mission against the BLP issues and come to a difficult decision. I don't know which way that decision would go, it's genuinely hard. But the system we have doesn't encourage that sort of deliberative, responsible process for policy making. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good faith objectors shouldn't be reverting every day, for instance, I would wager. (not even to The Consensus Version, not even to The Wrong Version). Nor should they be requesting page protection, I should think. And they shouldn't be wikilawyering about which policy xyz applies, or at least not longer than one or two posts, after which it should become clear to them that mere robotic behavior won't work (we have pywikipedia bot for that), and that they should start displaying some strong ai now.

Good faith people should be trying to work towards Consensus (which none of the above things are).

I do realize that some people might find that a novel concept.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I'm sure that xkcd would argue that import strong_ai should do the trick... but then why do we have humans here? Also, I'm skeptical about xkcd. I got an error when I tried to import antigravity . Very marginally on-topic, I had no luck with import soul either.

Ok, and the more direct problem at hand is BLP? I see. I'm starting to get the idea that BLP might be better off if we spun that off to wikinews entirely. But that's just my impression right now.

I'm willing to look into those discussions as well, if you like. Have you asked editor assistance or the mediation cabal for help already? (so that I don't accidentally cross someone else's work?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Short brroad-brush history of policy making at the English language Wikipedia

First we had no rules. Then some basic rules defining the project are make (the owner of the hardware, Jimbo, declares what that hardware will be allowed to be used for). Then rules get added based on existing best practice (we know the rules have consensus because these new rules are descriptive, not prescriptive). Then we get lots of new editors who take the rules to be rigid laws and apply them rigidly. Now changes to old rules can no longer occur though people gradually changing best practice because of rigid enforcement of an all encompassing set of rules. So now changes must be established as consensus by voting. But voting does not work when there is no way to establish who is an eligible voter. So we are increasingly stuck without a workable mechanism for changing existing rules. But that's not a crisis because the rules are quite good as they are. But for anyone who thinks they have a great new rule, they are frustrated by a lack of an easy was to get the proposed rule made into policy. Maybe that's for the best. Maybe it should be that hard to change our policies. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you can still document existing best practice using just normal wiki-rules for editing. Most of our current policy is still written that way, the process has never actually changed. At last count over 90% of policy and guidelines had been made and maintained using the normal wiki method.

Some people get a different impression, either because they've been pushing prescriptive practices, or because they have seen others do so (where those others have obviously been causing more heat than light)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's where the true problem lies. Perhaps my Welcome Template is a start towards fixing the problem where it began. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I agree. But I'm also raising the issue that a major change from existing policy can not be done though a gradual change in behavior anymore. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo by panel

The Delegates as proposed are basically the new Jimmy. As he's basically off doing WMF, Wikia, and scuba diving with Tony Blair on Richard Branson's island, the proposal as formulated basically looks like a realottment of the authority he once enjoyed to the community in an official capacity. The community elects trusted delegates to x length terms; the delegates basically handle the dirty work of policy clarification, change, and implementation, and if it's a major change can draft a WP:3RR style vote for the community to decide. Behavioral stuff stays with the Arbcom. The Policy Delegates will not answer to Arbcom or to Jimmy, but if there's a legal question (GFDL, etc.) they can ping Mike Godwin. Grab your 15 to 50 most trusted, chuck 'em on 1-year terms, and let no one serve more than 2 consecutive terms to avoid stagnation, and I think you've got a winner. This is a great proposal. It's the epitome of community since it empowers the community to take supreme control of about everything in a fashion that will scale over a time frame of years. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 14:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like what we wanted to happen in the first place. Someone should write a page for the proposal on exactly what would happen. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<Eyes the salesman on the doorstep> If I actually wanted a new Jimmy, that'd be totally true. But like, I don't want any Jimmys anywhere near policy anymore, that was totally a stopgap. Why would I want a new one? <looks rather suspicious> --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC) (I don't think JWales minds one bit that the community can take care of itself now :-) )

Haven't your heard those Hendrix lyrics, "Move over, Rover, and let Jimmy take over"? Oh wait, maybe that was "Jimi." Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling it "Jimmy" was just a descriptive, really. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I just edit policy myself? Strange things, these wikis are. They work just fine for such mere trifles as multi-million page encyclopedias, but fail utterly for such important and complex things as describing how a single website works. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Sarcasm? What sarcasm? O:-)

Because CCC in the classic sense and the old ways will be dead when we have 10 times as many people as a viable solution. Jimmy's hippy ways aren't going to scale up unfortunately. I think the point of this as I understand is to make the site viable in this regards no matter how big it gets. The bigger it gets, the more structured some things would I think need to be. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lawrence Cohen above. Walton^One 21:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bzzt

Lawrence cohen said:

Because CCC in the classic sense and the old ways will be dead when we have 10 times as many people as a viable solution.

Which possibly isn't going to happen for at least another 10 years or so, looking at statistics over time. Wikis tend to scale very well. (I'm not kidding. 10 years is a conservative estimate, in case we happen to be at the edge of some curve we can't quite see yet.)

Jimmy's hippy ways aren't going to scale up unfortunately.

Jimmy's hippy ways? Don't you mean Ward Cunningham et-al's rather well thought out patterns? wiki:

I think the point of this as I understand is to make the site viable in this regards no matter how big it gets. The bigger it gets, the more structured some things would I think need to be.

So why do you want to stomp all over the existing structure like an elephant, without even looking at it? :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't. Just weighing in, is all. But I fully support anything that would take policy-power out of the hands of the few and legitimately push it back into the hands of the many. The problems are that 1) a small group of wonks can stop policy talk; 2) the more people that join a discussion the more likely, as Kirill observed, that it will be an automatic no-consensus. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were taking it out of the hands of the many, and putting it in the hands of the few. I'm totally opposed to that, of course. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of this proposal as Matthew drafted it is the exact opposite. This would be the exact opposite of disenfranchising the few; it would disenfranchise policy trolls, policy wonks, and people that loiter in Wikipedia-space rather than building an encyclopedia to give the power to the masses to make policy decisions. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But the "masses" (geesh) ... the wikipedia editors already have that power, they may collectively form consensus on any matter and carry it out. This proposal pulls that power out of their hands, gives it to some committee, and then (at the end of the day) it's thecommittee tells the editors what they're supposed to do, basically. Oh and in between that there's lots of voting yelling, and basic way-past-dunbars-number-human-condition going on too... erm... I'll shut up now. It's just I need this broswer window to test... and the temptation... <reaches for logout button> --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Graphical workflow of what the ideas "look like"

This is based on what all the ideas here kind of mesh together as:

How close is this to what everyone is envisioning? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An observation on this: no one will be disenfranchised by such a system in any bad-faith sense. Since "one" voice or a small minority of voices shouldn't have more weigh or authority than any other comparable group of the same size or large on the wiki, the only people who would be disenfranchised by such a system is the group of policy-wonks that tend to currently dominate policy changes and discussions--the policy "regulars" would be made partially redundant and kicked down to the level of everyone else. This is not a bad thing, in the grand scheme. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I would strongly oppose the creation of a power structure such as that.(Though I have to say that without a touch of "this or that", I might support it.) My main concern is its role in the creation of policy. I still would prefer that this group just be a "review board", and possibly also as a braintrust that other groups (such as arbcomm) might solicit opinion from. - jc37 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I oppose that and any attempt to create a Parliament or any other sort of decision making body along these lines. I'd like to see something in which we could get the whole community to engage with policy creation, but not a parliament. The wiki process, and it pains me to admit this, is the best we've got at the moment. Although we need a better method for tracking all the changes. Wikipedia has certainly outgrown the watchlist model. Hiding T 16:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this map is sort of exactly what we have now. Policy proposal > Discussion > Determine consensus > policy change goes live. This is sort of just a stewarding of it, but on a scale that may theoretically scale up to many x times the number of users we have, and seems (based on what everyone has said here) to be an attempt to strip away some of the anarchy in the process, to prevent any small group or lone users from stopping policy change. Stopping lone wolves or small interest groups on-wiki from blockading policy change alone would make something like this worthwhile--we don't need policy wonks. What don't you like about this? I'm torn on the overall idea myself, even though I'm more in favor in general of structure to things rather that chaos. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If step 3 were also sent down to a vote/poll to determine acceptance, so that this group were more a bunch of Policy Stewards, or simply trackers/gatekeepers to major policy change, would that be less offensive? A Policy Steward body would be more appealing to me personally. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A modified workflow based on this feedback:

Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec's later)I share some of the concerns of JC, Hiding, and maybe others above, but probably not to the degree that the editors themselves necessarily do. In terms of creation of new policy, I think that, if the model were enacted, the initial "drafts" of new policies would almost certainly be in most cases a simple statement of a behavior or other standard, and possible exceptions to that standard which would emiliorate the situataion. But having a body which could draft policies for discussion, and at the same time hopefully ensure that the drafts don't have huge defects in them which have to be altered later, would probably be a good thing.

I do think that if there were a specifically designated "review period" for editors in general, most of the concerns they express would almost certainly be considered, up to and including rejection of the current draft. I think that it should be made a bit clearer that the community input section would be ongoing throughout the period of a policy being considered, up to and including the !voting itself. But I agree that this would open up the discussions more. There are other ways to do that, including a new WikiProject noticeboard, which can and should be added to any number of other pages, and the like. But that noticeboard, when placed everywhere it should be, and the Signpost, which could probably run a regular bit on the policy proposals, developments, etc., should both increase the level of involvement and participation of editors, while at the same time ensuring that the current stagnation ceases. I have some concerns regarding some of the ancillary details, like size, whether ArbCom members and bcrats would get in automatically, possible development of other governmental entities, and the like, but most of those can be dealt with later. The flow chart looks like a good starting point, even if some of the details clearly need to be worked on, like maybe the additional step Lawrence proposed above, which I don't have any objections to adding, with one proviso. In the event the process were started by a request/demand for a policy from Jimbo, ArbCom, the legal office, or some similar entity, then the Stewards might be allowed to vote for the proposal at the end, if the statement from Jimbo or ArbCom were to somehow indicate that such a policy, even a very basic, undeveloped one, were somehow necessary.

And, to specificy what I meant by ancillaries above, as I expect there will be questions, I'm thinking of group makeup, numbers, removal of members of the body for misconduct, and the possibility of members recusing themselves from certain discussions. Also, it might help if we had a group of specifically designated Arbitration and policy enforcers, and standards for enforcement, like ensuring parties with apparent, if not necessarily real, possible conflicts don't try to to enforce arbitration decisions regarding parties or issues with which they have conflicts. Doing so would help ensure that the appearance of COI doesn't happen very often, if at all. The latter development would probably be "liberating" in a sense as well, as someone being considered for AE would be able to be a bit surer that there would be no "action by enemies" involved. I think that any real proposals which really do limit freedoms in a unnecessary, potentially damaging way, which I don't think these do, would probably be dismissed unless there were obvious need for it for whatever reason. But, in terms of the negative effects of creating new policy/guidelines, having a clearer idea of what they are in advance, and what the consequences of acting contrary to them are, is generally much more liberating than finding out after the fact that you've done something wrong which you can be penalized for. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(Looking over the new chart) - For one thing, I would split the election of the committee members and the tasks of the committee members to two separate charts (they're separate concepts to discuss)

So for the latter topic:

• A. "Request for policy and guideline review" (PAGRV): A request for a guideline page to be reviewed to become policy OR concerns about an existing policy page come to light
• B. (possibly) a request for an essay to be reviewed to become a guideline, or a guideline review to become an essay. (I say possibly, because we may wish to leave essay/guideline discussions solely with the community, with the PAGRV committee merely being solicitied for an opinion on policy.) Acting as mediator/arbitrator concerning only policy/guideline, and not the actions of editors involved - which would instead be arbcomm's jurisdiction
• C. The PAGRV committee is requested by arbcomm, or some other group, to offer a "finding" and/or "principle" concerning policy and/or the interpretation of policy.
• D. WMF (or some such personage or body) has determined that a guideline (or some core concept) should be or become policy (I'm strongly tempted to remove this section, as I really don't like the idea of this review body even coming close to "creating" policy or even a policy page. Perhaps this could be downgraded to PAGRV supervising the organisation of a panel/project to create a policy page, upon request of WMF, or whomever, and then reviewing that panel's results, and presenting both the results and the review to the requesting body.)
• E. A - D lead here, to a "presentation" page (a combination of arbcomm's evidence and workshop) which anyone can edit.
• F. E leads here, to a discussion between the members, with community allowed discussion on a related talk page (comparable to "final decision" in arbcomm, or a bureaucrat chat)
• G. Resolution/Interpretation/Opinion presented.

This essentially is (roughly) how Featured article process works, Arbcomm works, and a host of other examples. It's inclusive of the community, while having a set of individuals acting as the "closers" to the discussion (rather than just a single individual, such as Jimbo Wales (in the past, and, though rarely, sometimes the recent present), or an admin (XfD), or a bureaucrat (RfA), or whatever.)

Review = reviewing a page to see whether it meets/falls within a.) Foundation principles b.) current general usage c.) the current policy framework d.) current community consensus, etc.

If I'm missing something, please ask for clarification : ) - jc37 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FA doesn't scale at all, it's a one man show (two man now). Arbcom does not scale and has needed replacing for quite some time. (We've shored it up by reducing the workload with layers of mediation, some of which does scale, but that's really not the way to go in the long run). If you are hell-bent on making a new system, please at least base it on something that isn't about to fall apart. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the Kim Bruning who was suggesting that we look to the policy and process already in place? Or are we cherry-picking what "we" prefer? : P - jc37 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL no! You totally have the right idea going there. And I guess we totally should discuss arbcom, FA, and also *FD... all of those have (had) scaling issues. And that's a totally interesting fact, I suppose. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We can, and I'd probably enjoy the discussion : )

But talking about "scale", consider what we're discussing: Policy pages.

Now compare the number of policy pages to the number of editors who get into disputes, or the number of pages up for deletion, or even the number of FC up for review.

Thousands or millions compared to what, several dozen?

Honestly, my main concern is that the members (if they only focused on their committee work) would be twiddling their collective thumbs. But with the addition of being a support body to arbcomm (and others), I think they'd be kept fairly busy : ) - jc37 18:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The one advantage, of course, to not keeping them busy on committee work is that they would be less likely to suffer burnout from doing too much committee work. I personally think that the proposal would be best if it resembled what the US Congress started as, a group of "part-timers" who give up some of their time to write the bloody policies and guidelines, but get to spend much/most of their time doing something else, which they're probably more interested in anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

current method

The current method to maintain policy pages is documented at Wikipedia:Consensus, and that page (and many pages like it) are being maintained by that very process right now. :-) (It'd better be, if we don't even trust our own dogfood, we're lost.)

The advantage of that method is that it works, and that it works now.

This method is characterized by quick turnaround, the ability for anyone to contribute at any time, the ability to teach people about the policy by allowing them to directly modify it, and many more besides. This method has been used to create 90% of our policy pages or more, as well as over two million encyclopedia pages. It is proven, fast, well tested, and resilient even under continuous pressure by vandals. It also scales extemely well, because it lacks central choke points or particular time requirements.

There are also several extensions and improvements that have been devised over a period of 8 years that are built upon this system. Several processes and systems have been designed around it or built upon it.

Before we abandon current best practice, perhaps it should be studied more closely. Just because you are trying things at random and failing doesn't mean that an existing process isn't already documented. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You know I love you, Kim, but this is a classic example of what I meant by one person burying a proposal or change with "machine gunned criticism". :) No one is as heavily commenting on this as you, and it's beginning to drown out the page. ;) The tenacious should not win simply for being tenacious. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. I was actually considering scaling back on my replies, I guess you noticed too. I have some coding to do too, so possibly I might go off and do some of that. There's just so many issues with this particular proposal, I don't really know where to start. :-/ Anyway, this particular section wasn't too critical, was it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not too critical. I'm more in favor of decentralized but structured control, you're more in favor of just decentralized control. Apples and oranges, both good for you. Just a question of what vitamins are best for our job. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Majority = consensus

I think that's a big part of the disconnect. Which is more important to us on discussions, and policy changes? Getting your opponents on board, or going by what the majority wants? Tricky. If the majority want a given change, but the minority don't, what should matter more? What the majority want, or the concerns of the minority? Should a minority be able to quash the majority, as commonly happens now? This is one of the reasons I tend to not weigh in much on policy stuff after some aborted attempts. I've seen too many discussions where 15, 20 people endorse something, and some loudmouth 1-5 people come in with a machine gun of complaints and bury the changes. It ends up being a situation where the most dedicated, overwrought (I'm no less guilty on that mark, unfortunately, cf my RFA), or persistent people win, even if their wishes don't align with the majority.

It has the net effect of the users who spend the vast bulk of their time on policy pages running the show. This is not a good thing. Everyone knows the folks I'm talking about, as well: look at their contributions, and of their last 1000, 90%+ will be to Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk pages. Our current model rewards the tenacity of the vocal minority rather than the will of the majority. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Example. If I edit a policy page so that it now reads, in full: "poop". Does the policy change? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

With the current system, no, certainly not - it would be instantly reverted, and the page has to stabilise before the changes are meaningful, whatever meaning you see them as having. With the proposed system (at least, by my understanding, which differs from some), if the assembly voted to change the policy page to "poop", then that would be the new policy (for as long as it took for people to IAR and get the hell rid of the insane assembly). --Tango (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the policy just stays the same old, no matter what change you make to the page. People will do whatever they like, and what they do is what's called policy. The page just documents what they do. Like any other wiki page, it can fall behind, be vandalized, etc etc... --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but: I think lately from things I've seen is that there is more of a shift that policy as written, in an accepted form, to be enforceable. This sort of proposal would be that sort of thing. It's really more of a cultural proposal change than a silly new process. "If the majority says policy is this, you need to do this, and thats that." Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. But that's not really a good idea, is it? That basically disenfranchises up to 49% of all Wikipedians. (And that's the optimistic version :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, 51% isn't a clear majority, though. If you applied RFA-type pass/fail standards, it would be a whole other game. If you had 100 people all vote on a change to a given policy that is not a WMF/legal matter, and 80 to 90 of them endorse the change, that's it, game over: change should be done. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, people can do whatever they like, but they'll end up getting blocked for it. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, majority certainly doesn't equal consensus - that much is easy. If there is a consensus on a matter, then the way forward is clear. If there isn't, then the first step is to try and form one (ie. discuss, convince and compromise until everyone is a least willing to go along with it). The problems arise when we are unable to do that and it's then that we have to decide between doing nothing or using something other than consensus for decision making. At the moment, we generally fall back on polls, but they rarely go well. This proposal is an alternative method for dealing with situations without a consensus. --Tango (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, we can wait. m:Eventualism :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In some cases, sure, but not in all. Sometimes the status quo is the worst of all the options. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Kim is taking it for granted, possibly fallaciously, that, while waiting for "eventualism" to triumph, we don't have the ship sinking as a result of a problem which has arisen while we're waiting for eventualism to kick in. Realistically, I think we have to admit that just putting everything off till later will almost certainly have the consequence of creating additional problems we don't need, and could have resolved earlier, had we not been almost religiously relying on eventualism to ultimately save everything. This is particularly important if what we're relying on eventualism to solve is a legal matter which could potentially destroy the project immediately. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, that ATT poll had what, 67% support? What if that had been 90%? If Jimbo had come along to quash the ATT move then, what would have happened? He would have been out of bounds and the community would have been within their power to quash him in return. Majority certainly can equal consensus, and should, but our systems and discussion methods are setup in a way that encourages watering down of strong ideas by discussion for (often) pointless discussions' sake, and with our harebrained "voting is evil" methodology, it often discourages people from expressing if they simply do support something. Not all decisions require 100kb of discussion per person; not all changes require 10 pages of archives. That discourages many people from joining in. If someone does 800 edits a month, 600 to articles, 100 to various user/article talks, and at best 100 to Wikipedia spaces, why shouldn't his opinions on a policy matter carry the same weight as say Kim, or Until 1=2, or Ned Scott, who tend to spend as much time on Wikipedia internal matters as our example editor spends on articles? We are all supposed to be exactly equal here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(In reply to Lawrence) This somewhat simplifies the issue with changing policy. It is rarely a case of X% support and Y% oppose, it is usually in multiple shades of gray. A% support the whole thing, B% oppose the whole thing, C% support parts 1 and 5, D% supports parts 2 and 3, E% supports parts 2 and is strongly opposed to part 1, etc. You could rewrite the proposal to exclude the parts that got the least support, but then the people who supported the parts that were removed may no longer support it or a completely different group of people might give their opinions. There's also the issue of "what is consensus?" This was one of the major problems with the rollback discussion. Unless you do it as a straight Yes or No vote like ArbCom elections, the more people that get involved, the bigger variety of opinions you get and the less likely you are to get consensus for any one idea. This is also why WP:RFC/U is the worst discussion format we have, it basically encourages this. Mr.Z-man 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Was the 3RR vote a good thing or a bad thing? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a meaningless question - there is no such thing as "good" and "bad", just "better" and "worse". You need something to compare it with. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, compare the 3RR vote to the ATT vote. The 3RR vote appears successful, passed, and from poking around old stuff, didn't appear that controversial. See also the vote for the Main Page redesign. Compare to ATT, where everyone fought like mad, mainly over not giving up community control to a vote: reading that was painful. It seemed like the anti-vote was as much "voting is evil" dogma as it was some people refusing to yield policy control to the unwashed masses. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If your change has 100% support, it might still not be policy. (a textbook example happened recently with the recent NFCC policy page, where 100% of those present supported an alteration, but the alteration got reverted anyway. ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Diff? NFCC is a legal/WMF matter, however. Those are immune to consensus. If you had 40 people all endorse a change to WP:NPA with 100% support, and one person reverted it out to stonewall, that one person is as they say here in the States, "Shit out of luck." Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What? No fillibuster? (sorry, had to : ) - jc37 18:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Filibustering is not a productive thing on here. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in that particular case, but surely the person that reverted didn't support it, so there wasn't 100% support... --Tango (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets say 25 people endorse a change to BLP and I say, "Hell no." and try to stonewall. How far should I be able to take that? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Potentially? all the way through the DR process, to arbcomm, if necessary. Here's the thing, though. Arbcomm will tell you that they don't decide which version is "right". So as you said above, eventually, you're SOL. Better go make some friends (grin). - jc37 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, bingo. And this sort of process would make it so that no one is ever SOL, in that way, since any good-faith policy change could get a shot at being heard before the whole community, as I read it. It'd make policy edit warring pointless; it'd make sure that crappy changes or changes that some people push through to benefit their own Wiki-interests get quashed; and it would make sure that only broadly-supported changes go through, and none by anyone's fiat. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! FloNight♥♥♥ 19:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Then that's "policy review", not "policy creation". Since that'd be reviewing the edits made. Or am I missing something? - jc37 19:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy is created either by someone posting a proposal, and the majority of users endorsing it; or someone drafting a policy that reflects practice, and the majority of users endorsing it. It doesn't really matter if one person drafts it, or two, ten working in a team, or 50 working in a panel, though, does it? If the policy itself or a change to policy has legs, regardless of how it originated, it will either fly or it won't. Let's say some guy that has a Great New Idea (to him) for policy, but not a lot of great knowledge to socialize and implement this under the current, present day model. He can come to these Stewards, or Gatekeepers, or Delegates, or whatever we call them, and put it up for review: "This is my great idea!" If it's sound, the clueful people we elect after consideration can put it forth in a well-worded manner to the masses: "Do you guys want this? Does this reflect the Wikipedia you live in, or want to live in?" Then we all, the body members included, decide.

Another thing that this reform proposal strikes me as: rather than small policy changes languishing forever in back-corners of Wikipedia, this will throw them out to the public broadly. If there are five policy changes in a month on a "docket", for lack of a better term, this will let the interested public possibly look them over in one centralized place.

At least that's how I read it. Taking away the backroom dealing, taking policy control out of the hands of the backroom, out of the very few and giving it up to all. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But anything on a policy page isn't binding because it's on a policy page, it's "binding" because that's what everyone does. So no matter how much backrooming goes on (which I assure you isn't as much as you'd think :-P ) , it wouldn't make a whit of a difference. That's a misunderstanding a couple of people have. Oh... sorry.. I was supposed to be coding... getting back to that. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've heard a lot of people say that there isn't that much being done in secretive, furtive, concealed locations as a lot of people think. And they're probably right. And if all those freaking idiots out there who seek this silly thing called "transparency" could just accept that they don't need to know anything that goes on in the backrooms, we'd all be happy. Why, oh, why, can't they realize that they're better off being kept in the dark about these matters? ;) John Carter (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The secret is that there are no backrooms for this kind of thing. By assuming that there are, and acting on it, you're actually shooting yourself in the foot. (oops) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The key problem with the proposed model

Draft mockup interpretation

An elected body of representatives? Seems to blankly contradict the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Anyone who wants can participate in policy reform and creation, and that's way it should be. Policy comes organically from within the community, and to do otherwise violates the basic principle of operation that has made this project successful. Laying the power to alter/create policy in the hands of delegates alone is not something I would ever accept, even if that process includes a ratifying vote. VanTucky 20:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Every one can add content, yes. That everyone can be directly involved in all the other process has not scaled as the Project grew. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

But handing over the responsibilities that ArbCom and the sysops each respectively have has disenfranchised no one's ability to have their direct say in the formation of the policy that governs Wikipedia, it simply handed additional powers to a few to enforce that policy. ArbCom, admins and others only act on the basis of policy that is open to reform by everyone. Taking away the rights of everyone to reform and create policy is cutting the legs off of what makes those systems equitable. VanTucky 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Where in Kiril's proposal (as mocked up in my silly little graphic as close I could) does it indicate anyone loses control? If anything, this gives MORE control to MORE people over policy content. The only people who will lose theoretically are the policy wonks that sit on the policy pages all day, as they'll no longer be primarily in control of and stewarding the pages. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the draft graphic before. Yes, I lose the ability to just hit the edit button and be bold in updating this content. A proposal which takes the ability of all to edit policy, and adds a bureaucracy that will stop users and say, "no, you have to jump through these legislative hoops to get policy changed" is something I oppose 100%. Policy on Wikipedia is not legislation, and I don't want it turned to that either. I don't care how you frame it, but any forced process whereby the power over policy is in the hands of delegates is bad. The point is: the privilege to edit policy directly is power over that policy. I'm not handing that power directly in to the hands of a select few, be they elected or no, without a fight. There's simply no pressing reason why I should. VanTucky 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we deal then where you have one person or some ultra-minority that doggedly wear out and nuke any proposed policy change until everyone gives up on it, or the ones where some out of the way group works to ram through their own policy shifts and then goes to war until their other opponents give up? Should victory go to the policy wonks, policy trolls, and the people who are willing to sit and fight for months on end? Or should ultimate authority over policy reside with the collective masses, and to have shifts in policy presented in a centralized manner for them to decide? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not having a centralized location to discuss policy changes that I oppose. It's creating a specified step-by-step bureaucratic process (which will inevitably require much instruction creep) to do so, and more importantly, having to protect that bureaucracy by handing over the power to edit policy to a select group of delegates. I would much rather see the way policy is handled stay the way it is (by those interested enough to devote time and energy) than see another bureaucratic process and a hierarchical position of power created. Again, the way policy is handled on Wikipedia is just another thing that shouldn't work (at least when you describe in the terms you just did), but in my opinion, it does. VanTucky 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You may feel that policy governed by the dedicated people that loiter on policy pages and are willing to get into months-long battles over the odd sentences works, but consensus apparently (so far) on this page seems to be counter to that. Why should policy be governed by people who are willing to babysit policy pages to deflect any and all comers? It engenders policy ownership, and falsely, inappropriately, and unethically empowers long-time users or the simply persistent who fight on pages until everyone gives up. That's the very definition of a problem, because it de-powers anyone from affecting policy that isn't willing to fight through weeks or months of trolling and conflict by vocal minorities. Look at the massive outcry from a very small number of users that comes up whenever people try to strengthen WP:BLP as a good example. You may not think BLP needs tightening, and they may not think it, but any system that allows a handful of people to derail a change from a much, much larger group is flawed. We need a way to smoke out the policy rats that will cause this ship to sink when we add more and more people; some sort of system that makes it so established every user has an exactly equal voice in the policy making process--without them having to spend 12 weeks doing battle with a couple of users. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm of the opinion that the proposed alternative is much, much worse than the present way of doing things. I don't want an elected bureaucrat holding court over the policy that I am obliged to follow and enforce. I want to be able to participate directly in shaping it, and I don't mind that occasionally letting all have access to it creates a problem. It's still a net positive. Again, the sausage making metaphor is applicable here. If the way policy is edited, created, and approved is so awful, then why is our policy so good? And yes, I do think our policies are, as a whole, very very good. That's part of why I wanted to become an admin. VanTucky 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate adding extra bureaucracy. I'll oppose it almost every chance I get. However, from my recent experiences, getting policy changed in any significant way is virtually impossible. Right now the people who are willing to fight the longest win and in the majority of cases those are the people fighting to maintain the status quo. We are a dynamic content website with fairly static policies. That isn't good IMO. Mr.Z-man 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a democracy, what is it then? You think people come here and invest their time so that some other people would command them? If so, it is at least immoral, and I find it offensive that you would agree with such practice. Also, you're misquoting - the original statement was "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy", which has completely different meaning. Samohyl Jan (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Democracy is not the only system of community participation, though it is one of the oldest. On wikipedia, we make decisions based on consensus of editors, rather than by democratic majority. We already knew that consensus was the best way to determine facts and NPOV, and we started to use it elsewhere mainly to just to remain consistent. But over time this has turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as consensus has turned out to actually be quite useful for purposes of governance.

One advantage of consensus over democracy is that in a democracy, the minority is just simply out of luck. In a consensus system, a minority still might not always get everything they want, but they certainly still get a say in what happens, because everyone gets a say.

As you might surmise, I've become rather enamored with it.:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC) So be careful before you clamor for a downgrade to democracy, because you will lose rights and become partially disenfranchised.

Power

Just curious. Is this proposal an attempt to expand consensus, and fill a current possible vaccuum in the process, or is it entirely about who should have the "power" over policy?

The more I read the discussions, it's starting to appear to be a case of "I want somebody to be in charge, so that (the enemy) can't stop me from doing what I wanna do."

Is this really what's being proposed?

A caveat: I've faced similar situations, and have been rather disgusted that a single POV-pushing editor can stop clarity or growth.

But to deal with this concern we're going to set up a student council, or possibly an elective dictatorship?

Would one of the original proposers please clarify this for me? - jc37 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've slightly misinterpreted it. We all agree that the wiki-consensus model works fine for the vast majority of decisions taken on the site - content decisions, etc. But for major policy changes, or the adoption of new policies, it is incredibly difficult to build consensus when you have hundreds or even thousands of participants in a discussion. There's no formal process for adopting policy; strawpolls are almost always inconclusive, and a vocal minority can block changes desired by the majority. In other words, what Wikipedia lacks is an effective legislative process. We're simply proposing an elected council to fill the legislative gap in Wikipedia. Obviously, everyone would have input into policy-building, just as they do now; but it would be the council who would vote on it and make the final decision. Walton^One 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpreting? I look at my post above, and my comment about a "student council", and I look below and see what? A student Wikipedia council. I know you're a strong proponent for Democracy on Wikipedia, you've made no bones about it. But that's not the "wiki-way", which is, by the way, a foundation issue. I strongly doubt that any sort of legislative body is going to fly. - jc37 10:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When the heck have we ever had hundreds or thousands of participants descend on a page without first having to be prompted by drastic measures (sitenotice for instance) ?

If inviting hundreds or thousands of people all at once b0rks your precious proposal... then... Don't Do That Then! Invite people a couple at a time and discuss properly with all of them. :-)

You're basically first causing your own problem, and then proposing to turn wikipedia upside down to solve your own problem that you caused for yourself in the first place ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Discuss and get buy-in from all or most participants? Never. The problem is the community should never on any discussion or process shift be held hostage by a vocal minority. If a policy, decision, or action is sound for the whole, showing it in plain language to the whole is perfectly fine. If the majority/community wants it, they'll take it. But we certainly will never need or desire detailed discussion-based buy-in from hundreds of users, the idea is absurd, Kim. We're not here to be social, and sway each others' views to our own, we're here to make an encyclopedia. If 90 people buy into something, 5 kind of do, 2 sort of dislike, and 3 vehemently are against it, too bad for the 3. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that contradict your "SOL" comments? - jc37 10:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Beware of the man who would disenfranchise you. :-) It totally depends on the arguments put forward. Ever watch 12 angry men? It's a good thing the minority wasn't overruled by the majority, or an innocent man would have gotten the chair. On the other hand, if a minority is being totally unreasonable, we already use rough consensus, and unreasonable people get overruled and even sanctioned.--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Vocal minorities have been very effective in preventing the implementation of the three revert rule, rollback, biographies of living persons policy, and even the arbitration committee. Oh, wait, all of those things exist. Are we just not comfortable with the idea that new proposals need community support? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A detailed proposal

Feel free to pull this apart/debate the details, but here is a general proposal based on the discussion above.

• The Wikipedia Council (sorry for the pretentious name; if anyone has any better ideas, feel free to suggest them) will be a body of 40 members, elected annually. (40 should be enough to represent a diverse range of views and avoid cliquery, while being small enough to be manageable.)
• The voting system used to elect Council members will be approval voting, the same as that currently used for ArbCom. Any registered user in good standing can vote and can stand for election; candidates do not have to be administrators.
• Major changes to a policy, or adoption of a new policy, will require a vote by the Council. The change will require a 75% majority (30 out of 40 votes) in order to pass. That last part is just a suggestion; I don't know whether we really need to require a supermajority or not. Please discuss.
• The Council will not vote on a policy change until the community has had an opportunity to discuss the proposal and refine it to its final form. Addition: However, the Council will, of course, have the power to amend the proposal before voting on it, or to pass an amended version. But they should take account of community opinion as far as possible. Walton^One 22:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• A more controversial part: The Council will also have the authority to order the desysopping of an administrator, by a 75% majority vote. I realise many people will think this point is a bad idea, so please discuss.

This may sound both pretentious and bureaucratic, but I believe it's what we need, considering the failings of the current wiki-legislative process. And from the discussion above, it looks like there's a rough consensus for it. Walton^One 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The desysopping should stay with arbcom, I think. The legislative body should be for making policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On reflection I think you're right; ArbCom is the "judicial branch", such as it is, and so it's probably better-placed to deal with such issues (which may require complex investigation). Walton^One 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need ArbCom in the first place. If we do decide to go ahead with this "judicial branch" idea, then arbcom needs to be re-elected and the terms shortened. Monobi (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a wiki-legislative process in the first place. From the sound of it, having one fail sounds like a good idea. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this stems from your repeated insistence that policy is not in fact a prescriptive set of rules (a view you share, ironically enough, with Kurt Weber). However, as I stated earlier, I am firmly of the opinion that the rule of law is a desirable attribute in any community; rules must be clear, static and binding on everyone, including those in power, in order to prevent abuses of power and to allow users to know where they stand.

No one should ever be blocked, for instance, unless the blocking admin can point to a specific rule the blockee has violated; otherwise, how are new and inexperienced users supposed to know what is and isn't a blockable offence? A bad block can drive away a valuable contributor, and remonstrating with the blocking admin after the fact is often too late. So while some (particularly those who have been editing here since the early years, such as yourself) cling to the traditional model of informality, consensus and collegiality, it simply cannot work for a community of this size. (Or, more accurately, it can work, but it will lead to many good editors being driven away by abuses of power, and to problems not being fixed because of the community's inability to change things.)

Anyway, I don't want to re-hash the same discussion that you've had with about 20 different people in the threads above. I'm hoping for some broader input on this specific proposal. Walton^One 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy is not prescriptive; consensus is. Rule of law does lead to stability, but it also leads to a system which can be easily gamed, wikilawyered, corruption and abuse of power by those in a position to dictate the rules, a strictly hierarchical community structure which we've been trying to avoid for years, stagnation and the death of "be bold" and the consensus model, and of course it would remove the ability of regular users to influence policy with the support of the community. A lot of people may trust "some committee," but when it comes time to choose the members of that committee, who do we trust with that sort of power? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I don't want to sound snippy, but do you have any criticism of this proposal beyond "We've never done it this way"? :( Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! no no! If we had never done it this way before, I'd have told you to totally go for it. (provided you don't force others to use your way too)

But we have done it this way before, and it has never worked before because you're starting out with a bottleneck (commissions, central pages (potentially), votes), making it very hard to get things to scale very well at all. Get rid of bottlenecks and other enemies of scalability, and see where you end up. If the argument is that wikipedia is getting bigger, then logically you must introduce scalability, not remove it, else there's a bit of a fib hiding somewhere in your story, eh?

The other problem is that you're being all prescriptive and building rather large multi-tier castles, rather than getting some basic tenets down and then putting the show on the road and seeing where the issues are, live and direct on-wiki.

Finally, it sounds like you want to funnel all policy work through just this one commission, amplifying all of the above many times.

If you can resolve those issues, you'll have a winner. :-) But watch out, with the current starting point, that's going to be really hard, so you may need to start thinking from scratch. There's an entire profession dedicated to systems design, but remember: first put down the requirements, then start thinking of how to meet them. If you do that, you won't go too far astray.

In the mean time, we already have a method that works and which many folks are using, so my two major worries there are that you draw too many people away to an unproven method (not too bad), or worse, that the untested method immediately becomes the only way for wikipedia to maintain project space pages. FYI the latter a pretty good definition of "bureaucratic screwup", so don't let that happen!

I hope you take these points in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this proposal. The community drafts the proposal and then they don't get to decide if it passes? This seems counter productive and counter intuitive. A two tier system won't work. You're looking to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The major problem on Wikipedia is one of factionalism. You won't solve that with any form of council or Parliament, you'll entrench it further. Hiding T 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that factionalism is a big problem, but at the moment vocal minorities can prevent any change whatsoever. We are never going to eliminate factionalism, and we are never going to all agree on how to change policy. But policy does need changing; and going with the majority view is better than no change whatsoever. What this proposal will do is give us an effective method for changing policy, and prevent vocal opponents of the change from derailing it. Walton^One 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiding, that's not how I read the proposal, but I already asked Kiril who wrote it to weigh in. The way I read it is that the "Council" or whatever they're called in the end are the policy stewards. Anyone can propose a policy change, but it would (seem) to go in one central forum, rather than all over creation like it is now. Everyone weighs in that watches the page, and if it's some valid request/change/thing then it goes to the wider community to decide, like how we voted to adopt WP:3RR, and it goes "on the books". The method would make all policy-changes super-visible, and would make edit-warring over policy (as often happens today to try to quash change or enforce change) pointless. It basically will make all the Wikipedia Policy Wonks that guard their pet policy pages unemployed, and give full control to the masses. That's how I read it, anyway. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the drafting of policy would be done by the Wikipedia Council, I think. But the Community would still have a large part in it as well. Certainly will have a place for the Community to make suggestions for changes or express disapproval. But in the end, if the Wikipedia Council approves it, the the new policy or re-writes would be made. Or course, further review and changes are possible after a trial period. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For me the detailed proposal sounds quite reasonable, and not in the least bureaucratic. There's one difficult point however: that the community refines a proposal to its "final form" - this will probably run into old problems (there will be no consensus as to what is the "final form"). It's a good idea to have as much community input on proposals as possible, maybe even leading to alternate versions of a proposal for discussion - but the "Wikipedia Council" probably needs the option to modify proposals (or select from different variants) as needed for compromise. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I've added wording to that effect. Walton^One 22:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Election Committee

I think an election of this large a group will need a designated election committee. The Community can still assist but I think we need a group of users to be responsible for making sure the election is well run. Should the Election Committee be appointed by ArbCom after the users are self nom and discussed by the Community? How many? FloNight♥♥♥ 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean about piling on the bureaucracy? Reason number three why I heartily oppose the proposal. VanTucky 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

VanTucky, this would decrease process wonk by removing power from the abusive ArbCom and giving it to the actual editors. Monobi (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, maybe I'm in a crazy minority, but I don't think ArbCom is abusive. And besides, since when was the power to create and edit policy solely in the hands of ArbCom? Never. It's a moot point. VanTucky 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully we already have a Election Committee. We call them Bureaucrats. Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more that, since ArbCom members can't be members of the Council as well (in order to ensure a separation of powers), one or two designated ArbCom members could supervise the elections. (Newyorkbrad might be willing to take on the job, I would expect). Whoever was designated as election clerk would, of course, have to be impartial and abstain from voting in the election. Walton^One 07:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why this is unnecessary

This proposal seems to completely misunderstand what Wikipedia's policy-making method is at the moment. Apparently it has broken down -- this is a myth! There never was a policy-making method! It is said that the last policy to be created was BLP. How many others can you name? In my memory, policies that have been approved in this way can be counted on one hand -- 3RR, the Arbitration Committee, BLP. But policy has changed since BLP was instituted. For instance, the (misguided, IMHO) policy of community sanctions exists, even though it has never been put to the vote. It is practised and it works to a certain extent; certainly it is Wikipedia's practice, and the way it has always worked is that practice is policy.

This proposed change seems to me to be highly unneeded. The whole point about Wikipedia is that our entire way of working can be summed up in three words "ignore all rules". This isn't just a policy, or a recommendation, or a current working practice, it is also the way other policies, recommendations and working practices are formed.

If people are trying to find a way of fixing the broken method of creating policy -- the one that involves straw polls -- maybe they should question whether that actually is the way of making policy.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That may have been how it worked initially. Now, ignoring all rules is becoming increasingly frowned upon, as policy is increasingly being seen as prescriptive, so changing policy by adjusting practice is frowned upon (because it means violating current policy). Changing policy by explicitly proposing policy changes doesn't work because all it takes is one reasonably-sized chunk of opposition to scuttle any policy change. Besides that, there are some things - BLP protection being the one that I'm most fond of invoking - that are too important, and currently not done well enough, to be left to the consensus process. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you name another? Four or five policies in seven years seems a bad reason to make this proposal.

The day that ignoring all rules ceases to be acceptable is the day Wikipedia dies. I have hardly ever -- in the best part of four years on the site -- read a policy page and I don't intend to start anytime soon.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Two questions

There are two questions here, to my view. First, is the current way things get done working to handle the large and important issues confronting the project? .. and second, if there is a problem with that, is this proposal the way to solve the problem?

I think the answer to the first question is yes no, things are not working. I think we have a building crisis with BLPs that we are not effectively coming to grips with. I think Kim (who above has been repeatedly (!!) saying "there is no problem, everything is fine") is wrong. The many attempts to put forward solutions to the BLP problem by prescriptive policymaking have failed, and I think most of us recognize there IS a BLP problem.

But the second question? No way. I think this proposed government structure is unimplementable, and if it were actually implemented, I think while it might be able to tinker round the edges, it would fail to come to grips with the actual important problems. So I oppose this solution. Policy here remains descriptive, and as long as you have influential people such as Sam, above, proud that they do not read policy pages, it's not likely that will change. No, I feel the same way about this as I do about the Wikicouncil proposal... not a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that the answer to the first question is "no"? I'm having trouble reconciling a yes answer with the rest of your paragraph (or indeed with the views I've seen you express elsewhere). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a typo. Struck and corrected, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that looks kind of like a typo. ;-)

More to the point, is there any feasible alternative (to the broad concept of a legislative body, not necessarily the specific details being discussed here) that would allow effective policy change to take place? Kirill 14:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a feasible alternative. Embrace the wiki way. This initiative is trying to move policy to be prescriptive. I think that is a very hard move, and counter to the wiki way. I believe policy here should, and further that it will, remain descriptive. Therefore the way to effect policy change is to change what one does, and encourage others to change as well. The way to solve the BLP crisis is not to propose prescriptive policy after prescriptive policy, each to go down in flames (because 65% approval isn't consensus, or whatever) but instead, act on the principles behind the proposed policies... close marginal BLP AfDs as deletes. Lock contentious BLP articles after stubbing them out. Delete marginally non notable BLPS if the subject turns up, shows they aren't notable, and requests deletion. Give more credence to the arguments and assertions credentialed people than anonymous ones (absent any other reason to make a difference). Sign and adhere to the Responsible Editing pledge. And so on. Those are all ways to move the descriptivist policy in the right direction, and there are other ways that are BLP related as well. That can work for more than just BLP as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, another thing I think would help a lot would be if ArbCom stepped up to the plate more. ArbCom's role is not to make policy, but when the trend is in the right direction and cases come up, it could be more forceful in its articulation of findings, especially principles related to policy, and recognise emergent policy earlier, and come down a lot harder on those who are standing in the way of emergent policy. What ArbCom did in the BadlyDrawnJeff case was helpful, rearticulation of the BLP principles was very good. Some of its more recent decisions have been far less helpful (the IRC case springs to mind for me but others may have other examples) ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I regularly find Lar's opinions quite insightful, and here I am again. Descriptive policy is the sum of countless individual consensus decisions across the wiki, based on community input and oversight, and that in many ways better expresses the will of the community than a small voting body ever could or would. All we need to do to change descriptive policy is change what we do, and to do so in a way that others agree with and support the changes -- consider it a viral thing, if you will. If ArbCom misses the ball, there's still a possibility of community resolution; if the proposed policy committee misses the ball, what's the next move? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I really should add a couple of caveats to what I said above. I don't disregard policy -- it is vitally important. I don't, however, spend my time reading it. I know what it says, as much from just spending time here. You shouldn't need to read policy -- it should be totally obvious! The other caveat is that there was a time when I took great care to read policy -- when I was a member of the Arbitration Committee. Then it was important to understand why people took sometimes strange action claiming policy support -- and often in good faith: they misread the generalities of the policy on account of its specifics. The reason I don't think prescriptive policy works is that you end up being unable to see the purpose of a policy due to the specifics of it and you end up enforcing it in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.

Furthermore, prescriptive policy doesn't work on a site like Wikipedia. It is a radically free and open project; prescriptive policy will not work under those conditions.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In total, there have been maybe 10 prescriptive policies ever made. One of the last things I did in cooperation with Radiant while he was still visibly around was to put a huge amount of sweat into tearing down the old broken prescriptive policy system, because it was an utter waste of time. It never worked, and Radiant and I finished it off, mercifully! Wikipedia has been around for 8 years, and we arguably(!) have maybe at most 8 prescriptive policies.

But look at how many policies there are in Category:Wikipedia official policy, a lot more! And there's also plenty of guidelines in Category:Wikipedia guidelines. So, we actually have an existing method that is used to maintain Policy and guideline pages. It's called Consensus. I'll even admit to occasionally lording our superior consensus system over other wikis <very innocent look>.

So I'm not so pleased about people attempting to ressurect the prescriptive system. Some people even want to kill the consensus system alongside. Well, that might not be entirely cool :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Remember that all project namespace pages are intended for projects or to document best practices. Radiant's original categorization scheme divided the documentation pages into 3 categories: Policy, Guideline, and Essay. I still think that this categorization scheme uses misleading names and is not fine grained enough for our current needs, but that's what we've got right now. People seem to have all kinds of grand ideas about what that scheme is meant to represent though. It's just a categorization scheme ;-)

I'm not entirely sure that the policies and guidelines being proposed fall in the "proscriptive system" being defined above. Personally, except in very obvious cases (WP:DONOTKILLPEOPLE, for instance), I think most policies and guidelines should be arranged for at least reasonable exceptions. But to oppose something on the basis of one's possibly incorrect views of what it might, potentially, at some point become, when it is being argued for the most part as being inherently limited, strikes me as being, well, odd. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive? I am opposed to "should" , and "arranged" and "reasonable exceptions" and all they entail. I'm not opposing what it might become one day. I'm pretty sure you're already there, because -while I totally respect you- you simply might not know any other way! --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I get the impression that I'm speaking an alien language to many people here... sounds like there's some acculturation problems. :-) If you're relatively new to wikipedia governance, you might think I'm totally bonkers or speaking in tongues or so. If so, I'll explain in more depth.

Not an alien tongue. The issue, I think, is that different people are defining what they feel policy "is", each in their own way. It may turn out that there will need to be a discussion on what policy is, before there can be a discussion concerning the governance of policy. (Probably not a bad idea, I suppose. Though I would have thought most of the peoiple in this discussion were on-the-same-page about this, as it were - and please pardon the pun : ) - jc37 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could discuss it, but it'd be a redefinition, if you're not careful. To me {{policy}} it's a category (and template) from a categorization scheme for wikipedia project space documentation, which was set up by Stevertigo, Netoholic, and Radiant (&co.), whom I knew fairly well. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And it represents *what* to you? (I think I know, but I also think you're enjoying making it appear that you're talking in circles : ) - jc37 17:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What the policy category represents? To me, nothing more than that. It's a semi-arbitrary category. Tags get shifted around all the time, and at times important pages are categorized "lower" than less important ones. Personally, I'd prefer a more accurate and fine grained system, for instance one where pages are scored by how many times they are linked to, or by averaging importance scores attributed by users ("How would you rate the usefulness of this page. Does that answer your question? Or did you mean to ask a different one? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ever see Chicago? ("Now presenting: A tap dance..."  : ) - jc37 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, though I could watch it sometime if it's a nice movie. What's the relevance? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, what I think in most cases what would be done wouldn't apply as proscriptive or restrictive, but, like Kim suggested earlier, "best practices", with possibly at the end, "if you don't do this, you have a very real chance of getting in deep doodoo." Like is the case with most laws todays, I very sincerely doubt that there will be creation of many new policies, but rather, more often than not, just statements made about the application of existing policies in some more specific instances. I doubt very seriously that we would very often have creation of entirely new policies, regarding things that aren't yet covered, at least in a broad sense, by any extant policy, though. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lar: I'm not quite saying that nothing is wrong. I recognize that some people have a problem. I also have a bit of a problem with those people, and possibly they with me. Not because we hate each other, but because we can't understand each other right now.

I guess the problem might be an area in which you haven't been looking yet? To wit: it's an acculturation problem. It becomes rather hard to solve problems together when you're not all on the same page eh? :-) But once people *are* on the same page, it's surprisingly easy to cooperate and work together, (even when updating and maintaining policy pages.) Folks who are on the arbcom mailing list could ask their colleagues (and ex-members) about acculturation issues too. You'll find interesting answers. :-)

I've been trying out different methods to try to solve acculturation issues. I think Wikipedia:Lectures might be the best approach so far. Drop by, listen in, and help out! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that lectures and acculturation can solve this. Starting to think that there is too much talk and not enough do. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Won't solve the BLP issue by themselves. Might solve some of the too much talk issues (ironically :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also addressing the BLP problem. Yes we have one. A really big one. I don't think that wikipedia is structured in a way that can ever resolve the biographies of living persons. The requirements (clarity, accuracy, morality, all delivered on the first public edit) are impossible to attain with the 100% public wiki-model used by en.wikipedia, which takes time and many edits for an article to get into shape. If you drop the public part from the wiki-model, things become possible. This is similar to the model already used at wikinews: where they first work on articles, and don't publish until they are done.

As I don't want to sacrifice the current public wiki model, my current position on BLP's is that en.wikipedia is the wrong site to host them altogether. We should consider moving such content to (for instance) Wikinews instead.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be sad to see that (moving BLPs off en:wp entirely) as the solution, but if no other solution can work, then that may be what needs doing. It would require some assurance that the problem gets solved by the move, not just moved elsewhere. As well as analysis of the edge effects of removal of bios... what of the articles that remain that, while not bios, still refer to living people? I'd rather see every other option explored first. But ya. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So would I. President of the United States would have to be moved (several are alive), all sports teams pages would have to be moved because of living players, recent movies, TV shows, even some biographies of historical personages who have had recent, notable biographies written about them, all would have to be removed if all BLP's were to be moved off. I doubt we'd have any more than 20% of the current articles remain if that were done. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

At which point we should better just close down the wiki. Fortunately, I don't think it's quite that bad, and Lar is correct that a middle ground might be found. Many BLPs are not contentious at all. Possibly we might only transwiki contentious ones. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, that is easy to say unless you are the person that is being publicly talked about on one of the largest web sites in the world. For many people, a Google search brings back a Wikipedia articles as the first hit for their name. People genuinely get upset when the article misrepresents who they really are. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read back up the thread a bit, you'll see that my position is that we may have to ban BLP entirely! The post you're replying to is a confirmation that I'm willing to compromise on that position somewhat, if someone figures out a different solution for our mutual concerns, or if it turns out that our/my position is untenable on practical grounds. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC) ie. a tacit reaffirmation that I'm willing to participate in the consensus process

Proposals so far

So far as I can tell, these are the various proposals so far suggested:

• (1) A group of elected editors who in effect write policy and guidelines at the request of the community, the foundation, or other parties - PolCom, if you want
• (2) A group of elected editors who review extant policy and guidelines, adding and pruning as required or indicated
• (3) A group of elected editors who function much like a legislature, writing and amending policy and guidelines as required

Personally, I would favor something like the third alternative, as it seems to incorporate both of the first two. However, I also think it should be acknowledged that there should be very serious limitations on what the group would be permitted to do. In effect, a very detailed constitution would be indicated as well, specificying in detail under what particular circumstances this body would be enabled to act. Anyone who sees anything I missed, or wants to add other options to the list above, please feel free to do so. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Though there are a myriad details throughout this page, it looks like a decent enough summary : )

Since I proposed it, it's probably no surprise I support #2 (review). And strongly oppose the creation of any body to "make" policy. In addition, I'd probably oppose #3 on the grounds of WP:NOT#BURO, but really this whole page falls a bit befoul of that : ) - jc37 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(2) and (3) are virtually identical from a practical standpoint; if the group can change existing policy, then it can make new policy so long as it finds an existing page to add it to. The only real distinction that I could see being drawn would be that (2) would be unable to create a policy which is entirely new (i.e. has no connection to any present policy); but that doesn't seem like much of a limitation.

(Personally, I'd prefer (3) or something close to it.) Kirill 14:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, btw. You just answered one of my questions higher up this page. - jc37 14:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, 2 and 3 are decidedly different. #2 reviews pages created by the community. #3 creates such pages. Therefore, #2 doesn't create policy, but rather is more "ratifying" a page which documents what already exists. #3 would actually create policy. Bad idea. - jc37 14:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be "ratifying as required" instead of "adding and pruning as required", then? If the group can add to a policy page once it's in their hands, then they can effectively create policy by doing so, no?

(More generally, even if all the group does is take ratifying votes on community-proposed amendments, any member of the group could—acting as a community member—propose an amendment themselves, so the group would wind up being able to change policy anyways.) Kirill 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as we keep the "hats" straight (and separate). Any arbcom member could submit an RfAr, recusing themselves from their arb hat. I don't see this as any different. - jc37 14:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

John: you forget "(4) use consensus and wiki-editing process." :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be repeating myself, but if #2 means "ratifying a proposal which already exists", it does not mean a great advance over the current situation. For the community would first have to agree on a proposal which should be submitted for ratification. The community should have the possibility to comment, suggest changes, and prepare alternate versions, before the actual vote is cast; but preparing the actual "final version" for voting should rather be done by a small group. Even with 40 or 50 editors that will be difficult; with >1000 it's hardly possible. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The actual number is typically under 10, for any given day.--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And that's the point - the final version should be determined by a well-described process in which everybody has a fair share, not by the 10 people who just happen to edit it on the last day. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no final version, and there is no last day. The process is described in great detail and mostly enforced by software. And that's what ensures that everybody who wants to can make any input they want, for as long as they want, to any level of detail that they want. And if they change their mind, they can come back and do it all over again. And again. And again. Whenever they feel it's necessary. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And this instability in our policies is one part of the problem. Most people do better if there is consistency in the world. When policies are variable and open to constant revamping it causes unnecessary conflict. I'm increasingly concerned that are processes are needless making people have unhappy days. :-( FloNight♥♥♥ 22:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that this is being argued both ways: the committee is at once the silver bullet which manages to enable substantive changes to policy, even as it also prevents substantive changes to policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm kind of enjoying watching the great dance here. Kim does a remarkable job at getting everyone out of their seats and on the dance floor. I don't even mind the tune for the most part. (Though at times... : ) - jc37 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

@Flonight: This was discussed a long time ago. I think we agreed that the world around wikipedia changes, so we need to be able to change with it. That has upsides and downsides, of course. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

@Flonight (late addition): And how could I forget. If policies make you nervous or depressed, you may of course simply ignore them. *gentle smile* --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC) this was one of the first rules of wikipedia. :-)

Kim, it amazes me that you continuously argue with "consensus". What is the "process" you're talking about, with respect to consensus? Who determines this consensus? Technically, everybody can edit the policies today; but few people do - not because they don't have an opinion or wouldn't support a change; but because they're tired of edit warring, or because they're too polite to override others. Currently, it doesn't seem to be a fair consensus that determines our policies or guidelines - rather it's a consensus of the most reckless. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus (and much of the project namespace in fact) doesn't document well enough? If not, we can recruit people to help out. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures

Wikipedia currently has about 100 pages marked policy or guideline. Since I need a subject for Sunday's talk anyway, why don't I go ahead and explain the methods by which those have been created and maintained? Would people be interested?

Sign up at Wikipedia:Lectures, or just show up at 15:00 UTC (that's 11 am Eastern Standard Time, for you usa-ians )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A different opinion: Wikipedia governance is thriving.

<Grin> Since two arbitrators started all this, I figured I should shoot back a bit, if good-naturedly (especially when the writers started taking shots at other dispute resolution processes) :-P

Arbcom a one stop shop? Why not compare the amount of cases handled by EA, 3O and Medcab together, versus number of cases handled by the Arbcom. You probably won't be surprised at all.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC) With apologies to those arbcom members who didn't start this page. Arbcom does a great job, and I don't want to turn this into mediation versus arbitration :-)

The lack of success in developing consensus is the reason that we have chronic problems. Dispute resolution of all types, including Arbitration, has been unsuccessful in ending these conflicts. Because the Arbitration Committee limits our self to addressing editor conduct issues instead of resolving content disputes, these conflicts feaster in the community. If the Arbitration Committee wanted to break with custom and write policy we could settle these disputes, but I do not think that is in the best interest of the Community. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that anyone on ArbCom seriously considers the idea that they have the authority to dictate policy. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't, where did you get that idea? FloNight♥♥♥ 23:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"If the Arbitration Committee wanted to break with custom and write policy we could settle these disputes..." makes it sound as if the only thing keeping the committee from doing so is its own opinion; if that view is accepted, it implies they have that authority and simply choose not to use it. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to see how that statement does anything but acknowledge that the Arbitration Committee DOES NOT have the authority to write policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can name specific areas where there is difficulty obtaining consensus, something can be done about that. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is hiding these issues from the Community. Read the last two years Arbitration cases. Keep in mind that frequently the reason that they reach Arbitration is because the Community can not reach consensus and one or more users gets so frustrated that the editor(s) engage in misconduct. We see this happening over and over again. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what the arbcom is for? :-) Do you feel that the arbcom is able to handle all the substantial cases that come its way, or do you end up rejecting a lot of cases that you really would have wanted to take on? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of our users have unhappy days, maybe even weeks, from their volunteer work on Wikipedia. If I can find a way to prevent some of this unhappiness by preventing some of these major flair ups over policy related issues, I want to do it. And as soon as possible. Life is too short... FloNight♥♥♥ 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally Agree with that much. That's been my entire aim for years. I also talked with DMCDevit today, but he won't have time 'till summer. We should put our heads together soon. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your original comment. Seems we've had an unfortunate miscommunication. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my wording confused you. I meant to make it clear that the Arbitration does not write policy because we do not have the authority to write it. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My head...

I have spend more than two hours reading this page (during which I should be normally sleeping); I honestly find it particularly difficult for anyone to follow this discussion, even if some people do have the time and energy to read the page. For the love of the Unicorn, 236 kilobytes in less than five days? It is ridiculous. I propose that we should try and rationalise this discussion. Can every participant please state their opinion, as clearly and succinctly as possible, about what changes exactly each desires to see take place (or not)? Then we could perhaps see some common themes and ideas and build on them. Waltham, The Duke of 00:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. (It's also higher up in the threads at #Graphical workflow of what the ideas "look like".) I support the idea of having a policy review committee. One which does not "make" policy, but which is made up of elected editors who would review pages submitted by the community.

Something like the following (copied from above):

• A. "Request for policy and guideline review" (PAGRV): A request for a guideline page to be reviewed to become policy OR concerns about an existing policy page come to light
• B. (possibly) a request for an essay to be reviewed to become a guideline, or a guideline review to become an essay. (I say possibly, because we may wish to leave essay/guideline discussions solely with the community, with the PAGRV committee merely being solicitied for an opinion on policy.) Acting as mediator/arbitrator concerning only policy/guideline, and not the actions of editors involved - which would instead be arbcomm's jurisdiction
• C. The PAGRV committee is requested by arbcomm, or some other group, to offer a "finding" and/or "principle" concerning policy and/or the interpretation of policy.
• D. WMF (or some such personage or body) has determined that a guideline (or some core concept) should be or become policy (I'm strongly tempted to remove this section, as I really don't like the idea of this review body even coming close to "creating" policy or even a policy page. Perhaps this could be downgraded to PAGRV supervising the organisation of a panel/project to create a policy page, upon request of WMF, or whomever, and then reviewing that panel's results, and presenting both the results and the review to the requesting body.)
• E. A - D lead here, to a "presentation" page (a combination of arbcomm's evidence and workshop) which anyone can edit.
• F. E leads here, to a discussion between the members, with community allowed discussion on a related talk page (comparable to "final decision" in arbcomm, or a bureaucrat chat)
• G. Resolution/Interpretation/Opinion presented.

This essentially is (roughly) how Featured article process works, Arbcomm works, and a host of other examples. It's inclusive of the community, while having a set of individuals acting as the "closers" to the discussion (rather than just a single individual, such as Jimbo Wales (in the past, and, though rarely, sometimes the recent present), or an admin (XfD), or a bureaucrat (RfA), or whatever.)

Review = reviewing a page to see whether it meets/falls within a.) Foundation principles b.) current general usage c.) the current policy framework d.) current community consensus, etc. - jc37 01:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. Now, next participant. No comments whatsoever; I want to see a succession of proposals. Discussion can continue afterwards, preferably after some reflection. Waltham, The Duke of 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My very modest and novel proposal is to use the standard wiki-editing model and consensus, which has been very successful in bringing us up to this point. The wiki model allows everyone to participate, everyone can provide input, and they can do so at any time. When everyone assumes good faith, you can get huge amounts done in a very short period of time. This is also why (surprisingly to some) the wiki model can also be very good at handling rapid response in emergencies.

I understand people have particular issues, but they're very normal wiki-issues, and are no more difficult to solve than any issues that went before. People have predicted the downfall of wikipedia (by dinnertime at latest) every day since day one. It still hasn't happened (even though we've had to work hard at times). If there are open issues, let's solve those issues. We can solve them rapidly and efficiently.

However, If you do want to try out alternates, that's fine, start today! The wiki-model allows you to do it even. ;-) Just set up your system and get to it and have fun! As long as you don't interfere with other methods, you'll do fine. Besides, a policy patrol might do wonders at times. :-)

• Wiki-model works great most of the time.
• If it breaks, fix it. :-)
• If you want to do something else, you're allowed to start today even.
  • as long as you play nice with others, who might use a different system

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC) How many folks here have read Excession? The Culture ships are organized by principles which are strikingly similar to wikipedia consensus. :)

I have two separate proposals.

• Radical proposal: As I suggested above, we could introduce a "Wikipedia Council" of 40 members, elected every year by approval voting (the same system as that used for ArbCom). They would approve policy changes by vote, acting effectively as a legislature.
  • Pros: Would ensure that our policies were fixed and definite, therefore avoiding confusion for new users. Would enable much-needed policy changes to be efficiently implemented, without getting bogged down in massive strawpolls and trying to build consensus from thousands of users.
  • Cons: Would require the creation of a new process, and would involve a selective departure from the traditional wiki-consensus model.
• Moderate proposal: Create Wikipedia:Requests for policy change, a centralised discussion forum for proposing new policy or changes to existing policy. Discussions could be structured rather like an RfA.
  • Pros: Would enable centralised discussion rather than spreading it over many talk pages, so community-wide consensus would be easier to determine. Would not move away from the traditional consensus method.
  • Cons: Who would close the discussions and determine consensus? Also, would not eliminate the problems we have with the consensus model.

Discuss. Walton^One 08:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Discuss, yes; here and now, no. Let's gather a few more proposals first, shall we? So, anyone else? Waltham, The Duke of 12:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the new governance proposal

As the drafter of this proposed policy points out, the current policy governance model is broken. I propose a Policy Committee (PolCom), with nine members elected to one year terms, who will govern our polices. The PolCom will make/approve policy changes, upgrade guidelines to policy when and if necessary, and advise on policy application and interpretation, such as currently occurs at the different noticeboards, like the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Thus, the policy pages would be completely protected (locked-down), and only a PolCom member would be allowed to edit them. Editors who want to make a policy change would present their argument on the PolCom page, and the PolCom would debate it and do a straight-up vote. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, PolCom may be a better name than "Wikipedia Council" (the name I proposed, which may sound rather pretentious). Perhaps we should take a strawpoll on what to call it (then we have, at least, hammered out one of the details of this proposal). But I disagree that it should be only 9 members; I proposed 40, because I think we need a broader range of viewpoints and community input. We don't want to develop a cabal, and I see no good reason to have so few members. Walton^One 08:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a simple reason why I will never support this (as I noted above, I am a proponent of direct democratic system): If the PolCom will makes few decisions per year, you can as well vote directly about what you want. On the other hand, if PolCom makes a lot of decisions per year, it will become difficult to keep track if the candidates are acting in your interest. Just think about it, and you will see that voting directly about the issues you care about is easier and more in your interest. Samohyl Jan (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The number on the board doesn't matter, IMO. I chose nine just to choose a number. As far as for tracking how the candidates are voting...so be it if it's hard to track precisely. Look at a few decisions, read some outside comments on the how the PolCom is acting, such as will probably occur on WR, and recognize some general trends. That should be good enough for most people, it is for me. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, I like your ideas. I think the number needs to be higher than nine, I'd say into the the twenties, at least. I want the people on the Committee to be well rounded people; continue as article content contributor and have a life outside of Wikipedia. The workload will be better distributed with 21-25 people, I think. I'm not sure about acting as advisers on noticeboards. I'll need to give that some more thought. I do think that our policy pages should be protected and new drafting of them worked in a work space. The name change to something more related to policy is fine with me also. It will keep the Committee focused on this work. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think we need a larger group than nine; burnout will likely be as significant an issue here as it is on ArbCom, so we need enough leeway that a few people going on break won't cripple the committee. Kirill 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. The only reason I would object to Samohyl Jan's proposal is that, as I think we all know, the only people voting in his/her proposal would be those who are either policy wonks or among those who would likely be very committed to one side or the other of the proposed policy. We would certainly have a distorted view of the opinion of the community, one way or another, if that were to happen. And then there are the matters of creating socks for the purpose of piling up votes, and all the other problems of direct democracy in general, and internet democracy in particular. John Carter (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're saying "we all know", but this isn't obvious. I would specifically want the rules so there would be designated page about the upcoming votings. So anyone could watch just this one page and decide to vote on any issue he would like to. How you, on the other hand, guarantee that those on the committee won't be policy wonks? If people are not interested in the issue enough to show up for voting, they are probably not interested in the issue, that simple it is. Direct democracy may have it's problems, but I have yet to hear about a problem with direct democracy that doesn't manifest much more in the indirect democracy (and I would like to hear of real-world evidence, not a feeling - 8 years ago everybody got "feeling" that Wikipedia will be complete disaster; in fact you could use the same argument - how you guarantee that not only crazy wonks or those committed to one side will edit the articles?). Samohyl Jan (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you looked at the existing elections for ArbCom, RfAdmin, RfB, etc., I think that "we all know" people don't vote is already a fairly clearly indicated statement. Look how comparatively little attention any of them ever get. However, I suppose that you could argue that, as someone who has never expressed an opinion in any such matters, but are making comments here, that that might not hold in all cases. And it probably doesn't. But demographics I think tend to back up the statement that people who don't get involved tend to stay not invovled. Regarding ensuring that policy wonks don't get on the committee, I don't think that's the case at all. I think the committee probably would be composed of people who are concerned with policy. And, to an extent, I can't see a problem with some editors who are active elsewhere, to varying degrees, and are also probably generally knowledgable about policy, being the ones to take part in such discussions. Like Sonny Bono heard in response to a question he asked why so many congressmen were lawyers, it's because what they do in Congress is, well, write laws. As long as they welcome input from others regarding the subjects under discussion, like ArbCom, which I think all the proposals above do, no one would be disenfranchised, and we would tend to make sure that the single-purpose voters don't get overrepresented. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about most of the policies, only very few of them (I am a very casual user, and now even more so, since I have seen some horrible things related to forming of Wikipedia policies). I don't care about who is on ArbCom or who is Admin, because I don't know these people in most cases and it's hard to keep track of what they are doing, so it's hard to say if they should be elected or not (also, I would like to note there is a fundamental difference between voting for someone and voting for something, as in the first case, you have to trust the person). And precisely because I am casual user and I trust community in matters that are of no interest to me, I wish for direct democracy. I don't want to select someone who is deciding instead of me - I would have to check up on these people, if they are actually doing work representing me. I don't know if you actually want committee to always represent interests of whomever voted them in. If not, then it's elitist and I certainly disagree with that. If yes, then it's just more overhead; just imagine if only a selected few on Wikipedia could edit articles, and people would have to come to that someone and politely ask to make the change. It would be insane - and yet it is precisely the same thing you propose with this committee. Samohyl Jan (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What if you only had to appoint one trusted person, and yet they (and their appointees, if any) did all the work of representing you? And you could fire your representative at any time, or overrule their decision on something, without needing to get other voters' consent? That is what liquid democracy is all about. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is interesting idea in theory, but in practice I can't imagine that. What you are saying that decision could retroactively change if enough voters would disagree with their representative? And also, who would keep track on who's who representative and that this information is accurate (I ask because I have seen an administrator being a member of "admins for admin recall club", voting against admin recall in the poll, and when I pointed it out, he said, well, sorry, that was old information; so if people don't keep track of their own stuff, how do you expect them to keep track of other's stuff)? It seems overly complex system to me. I would prefer to have regular referenda about change in a given policy say each 6 months, during which any changes requested by other people could be voted about. So if you would care about particular policy, you would have to show up twice a year. That's no big hassle. Anyway, now that I am thinking about it - direct democracy seems to be a special case of liquid democracy (because, in direct democracy, there are no representatives). So if people would feel liquid democracy is too much of an overhead, they would failover to direct democracy, so it would be a good thing. I would perhaps need to see more concrete proposal to consider it further. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually what people do is create a table of who is who's representative. Every citizen has the right to participate personally in decisions, and if both the citizen and his representative vote, then the representative's vote counts only for himself (not for both him and the citizen). You're right that if no one appointed a representative, it would just revert to direct democracy. The corporate world has used systems like this for a long time and methods have been developed of checking credentials, etc. See proxy voting. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Walton, Wikipedia Council would be a bad idea, because it would create confusion with the WikiProject Council.

Samohyl, a basic element of the problem we are encountering is the sheer number of involved editors trying to be heard in the various policy-making discussions; even if the body in question makes relatively few decisions, they will still be made in a much more effective way than they are done now.

FloNight, I quite agree; if we are to place our trust in a certain group of people, and give them the power to handle our policies, we must ensure that they will be in constant touch with the community, and not adopt a more insular and isolated mentality (as Wikipedia editors in general have been said to have, by the way, but this is a completely different matter). Waltham, The Duke of 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Waltham: Show me this sheer number of editors involved. And if they are trying to make prescriptive policy, perhaps we should dissuade them? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal, because something must be done about the ownership of policy pages, the endless edit warring to force through special agendas, the resulting confusion and the time this drains from article writing. Nine is far too small, though, and members should be elected, and terms should be no longer than one year: these measures should help with the ownership issues and yield more stable and reasonable policy pages. Further, if this model is enacted and works well on policy pages, it might be extended as a method to solve the interminable disputes at MoS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I fear that this particular medicine is worse than the malady. Groups of users have picked up some bad habits, preventing people from normal editing of policy pages. Admins are actually (unintentionally) complicit in this, because they have a tendency to do page protections and thus hand their victory to the edit warriors and filibusters on a silver platter.

I think a better solution might be to somehow act directly against such users, and at the same time to better educate admins in how to deal with such situations.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

By having one year terms, it makes the memembers of the PolCom more accountable to the community for their decisions. I believe that the number of members should be an odd number to help break ties in those cases where all members cast a vote. How about 21 members? I believe the current system used to vote for ArbCom members would work here. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes are a bottleneck. Can you make the system work without them? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To what are they a bottleneck? I see that they prevent a small group from making rapid changes, but some sort of formalized opinion-gathering process seems very responsible to me, as a way to tell whether the small gorup active on the page represents broader opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

They make a lot of wikipedia editors come to one single place, which is the leading cause of wikidrama. For the same reason, they also require a lot of extra layers of organization. All in all, they place a palpable strain on the community.

If you can avoid a vote at all, no matter how, do so!

Instead of trying to shoehorn in voting one way or the other, try one of many other methods that have already been pioneered on wiki, to get your people together. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, placing complete authority over our policies in the hands of a small group is very serious. As you know, policies govern what can go into articles, how we edit articles, and how we administer the project. Thus, a process that invites full community participation in an orderly and fair process is very important. The ArbCom election process does this with one exception- giving Jimbo final appointment authority. I recommend that we use the ArbCom voting mechanism, but take Jimbo out of the process. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and therein lies the misunderstanding. Our policies do not govern anything. Our policies do not govern. They document.

This is, in fact, policy!

I'm not sure that what I just said will convince you of anything yet, but maybe it'll given you an inkling that there is more between heaven and earth that you may wish to encompass in your philosophy? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes are not a bottleneck, and anything that brings more eyes to any page is not a bad thing. Anything that "breaks" authority so that it's in the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few in the end is inherently a good thing. If it "breaks" our traditional wiki-way of doing things or alters it in a paradigm shift over time, this is not an inherently bad thing either. It's evolution. Evolution is good, because to continue to survive, evolution is required. If this ends up making some of us not matter to the ruling and leadership of Wikipedia, well, the dinosaurs and hairy elephants went away... and the world kept on doing fine. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Our fundamental goal is the building of the encyclopedia; our policy system is merely a means to that end. Some people seem set on maintaining traditional approaches in perpetuity only because they're traditional, not because they're necessarily the best ones for the task. I think we need to avoid being dogmatic on such points; if changing the existing system will allow the project to function better, then we should not shy away from doing so. Kirill 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal: Polling on binary issues

Here's another suggestion: We poll on issues, advertising through the watchlist. For example, the recent rollback drama might have gone easier if we had started from the position of a poll with everyone accepting a two-third majority and a minimum input of 100 editors. Note this wouldn't be the method for writing the policy or guidance, this would just be getting community assent to write it. For example:

Poll on whether spoiler tags should be used in the encyclopedia. If they shouldn't, nothig changes. If they should, interested parties work up the guidance per WP:CONSENSUS. And so on and so forth. Can also work backwards, allowing editors to work up a proposal and choose to have a poll on the acceptance of it. This shouldn't be obligatory. Hiding T 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, no objections. And, in fact, part of what is proposed above was already included in the proposed PolCom, based more or less on the existing ArbCom setup. Clearly, even in the more extreme setups, I can't see how, if a process were proposed and rejected by the majority of editors, it would stand a chance of passage. The one exception being if a policy dealing with a particular subject were "very much requested" by the legal office or some similar entity. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies, Guidelines, and Constitution

I found it remarkable that even Kim, in the statements above, wasn't apparently able to clearly differentiate between a policy and a guideline. If a person who did as much work on most of them as Kim did can't, we have a real problem here. I think that we might benefit from having, at least initially, some group of editors, either formally chosen or informal participants, going through the existing policies and guidelines, trying to come up with definitions of the terms as relevant here, and maybe at the same time creating some sort of structure to the policies that emerge. Functionally, this wouldn't be that much different from a written constitution. As a possible preamble, stating our most core policy, it might start something like this:

"Wikipedia is an organization dedicated to the dissemination of reliable, verifiable information, presented in a neutral way, on subjects of encyclopedic merit. All of the policies and guidelines this organization has exist to further this one, central, goal."

By doing something like this, we would indicate what the most core "policies" (if that's how the word will ultimately be defined) of the project are, and maybe go on from there into the comparative "details" of policy and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"I think that we might benefit from having, at least initially, some group of editors, either formally chosen or informal participants...". Ahem. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If possible—and I have grave doubts that it is—let's pick noncontroversial souls, if anything similar is enacted. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid point, said the Watchmen fan. But the initial proposal was only for the possible creation of some sort of definition and review process. Arrogant as I am, I don't want to try to define the details before anyone else has even agreed to the raw proposal yet. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't differentiate between P/G/E at all in fact. I was one of the holdouts on that particular consensus. I'm still holding out good-natured-ly. :-) Are you telling me that you actually might want to come (partway) my way on this? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC) *hardly dares hope*

(edit conflict) The impression I have formed, Mr Carter, is that people here are not sure whether the proposal should apply on policies alone or on both policies and guidelines. However, the difference between policies and guidelines is one of applicability (fewer exceptions from policies are acceptable than from guidelines) and modification (changes can be made easier to guidelines than to policies). And, of course, policies are more widely accepted and constitute a more important part of the project's character. Apart from these... Well, what kind of differences are you expecting to find?

On another note, I hope your comment on arrogance is not some kind of provocation; I shouldn't like to engage in a contest now—although we could certainly schedule it for a later time... Waltham, The Duke of 18:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Kim, I'm not sure what s/he is talking about in terms of meeting partway. (sorry, but in the US, where I'm from, I've seen the name used for both genders). I never saw this proposal, and I doubt anyone else did either, as being a "regular job" requiring lots of time, just a way to fix some problems in a way that they will actually be addressed by some sort of policy or guideline, when to date we haven't been able to generate either in some cases where they seem to at least some, like the ArbCom, to be necessary.

To the Duke, unfortunately, I can't find that stupid white glove right now, but I will keep looking. ;) Regarding the difference between policys, guidelines, etc., your statement about the differentiation between the two, and about the question about whether this reform should address both, is probably accurate. I get the impression that this discussion is getting to the point where there should be additional pages detailing the specific proposals and variations being put forward. But, before that would make a lot of sense, it would probably help if we could all agree that there would be cause for the various proposals to be spelled out and discussed separately. So far as I can tell, there might be as many as three people who might be counted as completely opposed to these reforms, Kim Bruning, Kurt Weber, and Lar, and all the others agreeable to at least some possible variation on at least one of the proposals. Do any of the rest of you think that there is just cause to try to elucidate the various proposals at this point, or would that still be too premature? John Carter (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on my continued learning/understanding of the actual proposal made on the main page, if I am understanding it, I think I'm also opposed to it as it stands.

And if I am still confused, to clarify then: I am opposed to the creation of a legislature of any kind. I support the idea of a policy review committee, simply because the concept, at least, would seem to mesh well with other Wikipedia processes of editor or page review. That said, I'm thinking now that perhaps I should present it as a separate proposal, as this page's intended proposal seems to be (as it's named, and I apparently wasn't paying enough attemtion) based on the idea of creating a body for Wikipedia governance. So at the moment, I guess you can add my name (shudder) to the opposers. - jc37 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was considering your possible proposal as one of them. Whether its a "legislature" (which is a potentially loaded word) or just an ArbCom like body, which I think is what most people are agreeing to, might be a matter of semantics. But I was very much thinking that your potential proposal be one of those to be written up and considered. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said, I'm still not sure what the initial proposers (KL and CM) had in mind when proposing this. - jc37 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, KL's early comments indicate he wasn't real sure himself. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative voting systems for an assembly

Approval voting may not be the ideal voting system. Its main advantage is that it is cheap to implement, and marginally better than the bloc voting normally used in multi-candidate U.S. elections (where the ballot says "vote for not more than n"); but since this is an online community, the programming issues are not as complicated as they would be in, say, an electoral district having to implement new software on many precincts' voting machines.

Single transferable vote would allow voters to rank candidates in an order of preference, which could help the results more accurately reflect the will of the electorate. Interactive representation would allow each member of the assembly to cast a number of votes equal to the number of votes by which they were elected. So, say, if Mr. X barely gets elected to the assembly, squeaking by with only 50 votes, and Mr. Y gets elected by 150 votes, then Mr. Y's influence over decisions will be three times Mr. X's.

There are many other possible systems as well. As mentioned above, liquid democracy would allow users to have representatives, without the need for a formal assembly at all. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're proposing we downgrade from consensus? (because it's too complicated or so?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) wait, I know who you are.... :-)

How to create it (start with a shadow legislature)

I am thinking, any editor or group of editors could create a sort of advisory shadow legislature immediately, without going through the proposal process. Giving it actual powers could be done through a proposal, or the powers could evolve informally through a gradual building of consensus. Of course, if the legislature were created and started giving bad advice, then consensus presumably would not form to give it powers, and no harm would be done. It would be very similar to the proposed process for creation and evolution of a UN Parliamentary Assembly. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is basically my idea. The point is to create a deliberative body that can function when the scale is large. It is an old problem, and most of the old solutions tend to break down in various ways. What has never been tried, though, after the scale has already become large, is to form a deliberative body deliberatively, without first setting up a representative system to reduce the scale. And most people -- including political scientists -- will, at first glance, think this impossible under the conditions we face. However, there are certain techniques that can be tried, and as CC notes, there is one which does no harm if it fails. The problem with traditional systems involving elected representation is that (1) unless STV or other proportional representation systems are used, the representation tends to get rather warped and (2) it involves bureaucracy, election systems, and complications. However, there are certain principles we can derive from traditional forms, while hewing more closely -- much more closely -- to the direct participation that built Wikipedia.

Suppose those who want to form an assembly, instead of trying to create a community consensus first, just form it. Any registered editor may join and, initially, all have identical rights. However, from tradition, any assembly may develop its own rules for participation. These rules are special to the assembly and don't affect anything outside. Again, by tradition, the majority may protect itself, just as it may consider it wise to likewise protect the minority; otherwise the consensus measured by votes in the assembly becomes warped, no longer truly representative of the membership.

As to how the assembly proceeds, I could -- and have -- come up with suggestions. Delegable proxy, and the related Asset Voting, are ideas (the latter is quite old, and delegable proxy is really only a formalization of what happens in many peer organizations informally) as to how to compose a truly representative assembly without contested elections and bureaucracy. But, ultimately, the assembly itself determines its own rules, and it is sovereign over them. My suggestions are just that -- it happens to be a problem that I've spent thirty years on, but that only generates advice, not authority.

And if all the assembly does is to generate deliberated advice, binding on no individual or other body, together with a measurement or estimation of the consensus the advice enjoys within the assembly, it cannot harm.

So what is the difference between this and what we currently have? Well, for starters, we don't have any pure deliberative environments set up. ArbComm is close to it, in some ways: imagine, actually gathering evidence and arguments before voting! In deliberative bodies there are no votes (on ordinary motions) until a whole process has been completed, including, as the last step, a decision that it is time to vote. At that point, generally, every reasonable argument, known to any participating member, has been presented. What we have now, instead, is that someone makes a proposal (such as an AfD), and, immediately -- even without a second -- voting begins, with debate mixed in. So early votes may not have seen the evidence, nor considered the arguments. It's no wonder we distrust voting. We are often looking at knee-jerk votes, made without consideration of the arguments.

This immediate assembly, formed in advance of any consensus to create it, can cut through the thicket of noise that envelops any serious proposal for change. It can create NPOV reports on issues (don't we already know how to do that?). (Note that a report of a vote, properly done, is NPOV. Votes in this kind of context are facts, not opinions, generally. Facts do not control outcome, rather, they may be used as a part of advice; hopefully, our decisions are advised by facts! But by judgment as well.)

And the first business of the assembly will be to determine its own process. That will take time. There is a tendency here to start something and if it doesn't work or complete a task within a short period, we mark it as failed and move on. However, there are centuries of experience about how to undertake this task; it merely requires adapting the experience and precedents to the special needs (and special opportunities) of on-line process. Real-time meetings are probably out of order at the beginning, for example. Large deliberative bodies deal with complex issues through referral to committee, so then a crucial issue comes to be how committees are formed.

What will be noticed is that committees, again, don't properly make decisions; rather they collect testimony and evidence and consider proposals and then report back to the full body. This is the classic solution to the problem of scale: reduce the scale for full deliberation to a representative body, in this case a committee. Delegable proxy can, in theory, form ad-hoc committees that are broadly representative.

But delegable proxy also allows constant maintenance of true representation, if proxy assignments can be changed at any time. Further, to the extent that proxy assignments are public rather than secret -- I vastly prefer open systems -- direct voting can remain possible in any process, for the problems of scale really only impact deliberation. Most members will sensibly not vote on an issue when they have a trusted representative participating who takes the time to research it; that representative can communicate directly with the member if the member doesn't understand the rep's position, and it is my expectation that usually representative votes will roughly represent the conclusions of those represented after communication over the issue has taken place. This is why I describe proxy expansions as estimating consensus. For advisory purposes it is not necessary to have an exact measurement. Pretty clearly, if, for example, a vote is close enough that a few votes this way or that changes the "result," we aren't seeing a consensus, but a situation where the community has not yet found agreement. Strictly, the "result" is the vote itself, not a decision. Decisions are made by those advised.

Maybe later, the community could assign decision-making power to the assembly. But I'd prefer, actually, the present model. The assembly would advise; it would advise the community of editors, first and foremost, through deliberative discovery of consensus, and it would advise the servants of the community, being the administrators, bureaucrats, founder, and board members of the Foundation, and none of these are bound, per se, by that advice. But if the consensus measured was strong and broadly representative, and the deliberative process thorough, any of those advised could see that and would neglect the consensus at their own peril. Yet if they think the process flawed, they retain the right of decision according to IAR; what they decide is how they use their own personal power; the Foundation board decides similarly, subject as well to the constraints of law, for they also represent the State of Florida.

"Legislature" is the wrong term. What would be started would simply be a meeting of the community, an "assembly," and it would have no legislative power, with only one exception: it can make its own rules for its own process. It would presumably make these rules, tentatively, by majority vote. And if it does so abusively, there is a huge protection. It should be clear at the outset that it is possible to have more than one assembly. In the end, though, the assembly that is most representative and that has the fairest rules will probably absorb the others. (But sub-assemblies may still exist, they are what I call "caucuses." They each have their own rules, and they can restrict membership in ways that a full assembly would not.) "Extra" assemblies won't be formed, I'd predict, unless intractable disagreements appear over process. If most participants understand that the goal is broad representation and the discovery of true consensus, I don't think that we will see more than a few split-offs attempts, if any. If the full assembly rules are good enough, there won't be a need. But the possibility could help keep the assembly honest.

And where should this assembly exist? Because it should be free to make its own rules, I highly recommend it be off-wiki; the simplest form is a mailing list or (as in on experiment I've been working on), a family of mailing lists, being a top-level list and then committee lists. I've used Yahoogroups for this in the past, because the tools are adequate, and it's free. The decision, really, belongs to the person bold enough to actually start the Assembly and solicit participation. I've done that in the past, many times. Here, I'd rather see it be started by someone else. The person starting the list is the list Owner, and is thus, properly, a trustee, and is advised by the list. When I've started such lists, I've pledged to follow the list consensus. That gives me a certain right to, particularly at the beginning, disregard an apparent majority if I feel that it isn't representative. And, of course, the list members can take their marbles elsewhere: if a delegable proxy system is set up, with a tradition that a proxy appointment and acceptance involves an exchange of direct contact information, the list members, if enough of them have named/accepted proxies, actually *can* move elsewhere, even if the gatekeeper, the Owner, doesn't like it and bans them.

(An Assembly off-wiki could still have on-wiki pages, and an on-wiki membership list, but those would be supplemental and not critical. The independence of the Assembly is crucial. It must be free to make its own rules, which rules may, in some cases, conflict with Wikipedia rules, and at least one example is obvious: if the Assembly becomes large, it may restrict who can post directly to the proceedings of the Assembly; if this restriction is impossible, the problem of scale will impact the Assembly just as it impacts process here.)

So who is going to start the first Assembly? Be aware, there are elements here which are quite hostile to the idea, and some of these editors have administrative tools and are not shy about using them, given an excuse. I don't recommend that a new editor try it. But, hey, I'll consider anything .... it's easy to merge Assemblies of the kind I've described, so what is really important is that the process start. Failure, in fact, of any given attempt, can be success in the long run, if the next attempt is informed by the first failure. The true failure is to assume that the whole thing is impossible. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you create an assembly that fails and is MFD'ed, then it creates a precedent allowing speedy deletion under G4 of the next assembly someone creates. So, there isn't really an opportunity to incrementally improve the idea if that happpens. If we stuck to the wiki way that Kim suggests for handling wiki-organizations, I don't think that would be an issue. It basically sounds like freedom of association in that people can just start their little committee and do what they want, as long as there's manpower to keep it going. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, about the MfD. That's one reason why you don't start on-wiki. If you have an off-wiki "Assembly" -- and note that a number already exist, though I'm not aware of any that are functioning as deliberative bodies, though I think there might be one that was set up by ArbComm fairly recently, restricted membership, appointed -- it can't be deleted or obstructed, except by joining it and trying to stop it that way, which isn't likely to succeed. (Unless truly cogent arguments are presented.) If it starts to get some participation, then it's possible to create on-wiki connecting structures that, for example, invite participation, describe what decisions have been made so far (and how to try to change them if you don't agree with them), etc. Deleting those on-wiki links would be less than effective and would probably accelerate the process. Esperanza and AMA, besides their own internal problems which led to sluggishness and lack of enthusiasm (which may well have been temporary), were totally vulnerable to MfD. Off-wiki, they would have faced only the natural enemy of apathy. Which can be quite bad enough. --Abd (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey abd your sockpuppet demonstrated his hand too quickly this time:

my prediction: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Governance_reform&diff=208321611&oldid=208320414

What happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Governance_reform&diff=208573896&oldid=208573416

Who turns out to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chin_Chill-A_Eat_Mor_Rodents --87.112.64.32 (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposing creation of draft pages for the various individual proposals

The discussion here, particularly the more repetitive parts, are getting in the way of the various ideas put forward. I suggest that we consider the possibility of reform in some way to have received sufficient impetus for the various proposals suggested to be written up individually as separate proposals. Jc37 has indicated a proposal which I believe has merit, and others have as well. I think it would make sense for the discussion on this page from this point forward to be limited to discussion of the idea of reform in general. Discussion of particular variations on reform, including any that haven't been proposed yet, could probably best be made on the various separate pages for each proposal. I am in the process of starting one such page myself, and will put in a link to it at the bottom of the current page. I think that would be the easiest way to ensure that the discussion regarding this idea remains comprehensible. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a little too soon for that. I have started a thread above ("My head..."), where I have requested that the participants in this conversation should state their proposals. Perhaps this (expanded with further proposals) could do for the moment? It will be easier to try and find common ground between the various views this way; if some of the participants here could come, through discussion, to a single proposal instead of each of them posting their own, there would be less clutter and the proposals would have more support from the beginning. Consolidation, I think they call it. Waltham, The Duke of 21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward rapidly

While I'm convinced that the basic architecture is still sound, there are several things that can be done to make day-to-day work rather less frustrating for people. At the same time, I wouldn't want to actually block or compete with other maintenance mechanisms. The more the merrier :-) So here's my first unified proposal.

A group is formed.

(In whatever way we can sort out. Possibly "Wikiproject tidy project documentation"? :-) You could probably pick a less boring name. ;-P

The requirements for this group are at least

• scalability (a requirement for all new wiki-processes)
  • Monkeysphere. Be mindful of Dunbar's number
  • Choke points. Make sure that there is no central council or overused central page that can become a chokepoint. Make sure you never go over 75 people (dunbar/2, 50% redundancy) at any one location. If you can keep it under 10 or so, that's even better. If you can make it 1, perfect. If you can make it 0 (software task) we shall erect an altar and worship you. (see also: Burn out, Mediawiki)
  • Burn out. Keep workload for individuals low. Make it easy to split tasks up into small chunks or steps, that can be carried out by any volunteer at any time. Tasks that can be handled by software should be.
  • Simplicity. Try to keep tasks as simple and as rapid to carry out as possible.
  • simplicity 2. Try to keep the number of steps in the process as low as possible. Preferably very close to 1.
  • Mediawiki. Try to "go with the grain". Figure out tasks in such a way that mediawiki already partially supports what you want to do (dividing people into subgroups with pages, reporting on issues via templates and looking them up in categories, etc). Then the human side of the task becomes much easier.
  • Flexibility: The wiki environment is constantly changing. Keep structures in flux, simple, and easy to change, so that you can adjust your group to changes on the wiki or in real life. Don't become a dinosaur like AMA or Esperanza!
• transparency
  • People should be able to see what the group does at all times
  • it should be easy to join.
  • it should be easy to leave.
  • it should be easy to be an observer.
  • it should be easy to look up past actions
  • it should be easy to change the way the group works.
• speed
  • Decision cycle. Be mindful of the OODA loop
  • Keep it short. Make your decision cycles short. The perfect is the enemy of the good. It is more important to decide on time. Come back later to improve things further.
  • Take the initiative. act inside the decision cycle of others, take the initiative
  • Keep the initiative. act quickly enough that others can't get inside your decision cycle, or you lose the initiative
  • Morale is good. A solid tempo boosts morale. A slow tempo harms morale

Maintain the Consensus system properly.

At the same time, the normal consensus/wiki-editing process could also use a boost. Just like a democracy, consensus needs maintenance, else it falls apart just as badly. In fact, consensus probably needs a little more maintenance than a democratic system, since it requires slightly more intelligence and education to use. (Not so much that people aren't able to learn, but enough to be noticeable :-) )

• Find better methods to deal with the occasional special interest groups, edit warriors and filibusters. They're ruining it for the rest of us. Educate admins on these methods.
• The consensus system is tricky to learn at first, Make better documentation available (this might be a good first job for the doumentation wikiproject)
• Provide other (multimedia) course materials to bring people up to speed.
• Make projects, rewards and incentives for people who do some of the above
• We need to show a little pride in our systems, and maintain them accordingly. :-)

Resolve underlying issues.

I think there are some unspoken underlying issues as well.

• Too much pressure on arbcom
  • Explain consensus process and the requirement to assume good faith in more detail, so that people can learn to avoid disputes upfront.
  • Make the dispute resolution system more accessible.
    • People shouldn't wait to call in an editor assistant for advice. They should call them in early and often. Editor assitants are like the GPs in medicine, a gateway to further help.
    • Explain how dispute resolution works often!
  • Teach people how to mediate themselves. If everyone has some mediation skill, at the very least if a conflict breaks out, there will always be someone on hand to help deal with things
  • The mediation cabal is currently basically running a mediation school. Take your small conflicts to them, and/or join for a while, to give these people a chance to learn! If you are experienced, help out inexperienced people. If you are inexperienced, ask for help and learn!
• BLP and None-free content
  • You can't force things from above on a wiki. Understand and respect this
  • Policy talk pages act like a giant WP:BRD net. Have people "on staff" there at all times, and you can use those talk pages to educate new people on the importance of these policies
  • Hand off: In the worst case we can transwiki tricky cases
    • commons: is better equipped and trained to handle Free images. Worst case ban image uploads to en.wikipedia, and leave the job to commons.
    • wikinews: is better equipped and trained to deal with Biographies of living persons. Worst case ban biographies of living persons on wikipedia proper, and leave them to wikinews.
• It is impossible to develop new top down policy.
  • Good. That's because you're not supposed to ;-)
  • The current policy mechanism is structured for bottom up policy change, not top down.
  • If you want to change policy, change the way you behave, and convince others to do the same.
    • When this fails, it fails mostly due to people not understanding the system. Patiently explain how policy change starts withWP:IAR, WP:BOLD, and why you're allowed to as per WP:CCC etc... (yes, there was a reason we had those. ;-) )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC) FINE then. If you want to make a group, at least do it properly. None of this pussyfooting around! ;-)

Along the lines of making it "easy to change the way the group works" might we implement freedom of association? Let editors form whatever little mini-cabals they want, to experiment with different systems. Certain editors seem to have to tendency to want to charge through the crowd saying, "Break it up, break it up" (e.g. by MFD'ing a wiki-organization) which seems a bit contrary to wiki concepts of self-organization and self-regulation. This proposed legislature could very well fall victim to a similar attempt to crush it, or it might be destroyed by the community while still in an embryonic stage, before anyone has a chance to see how well (or badly) it would have worked. It shouldn't be that we can only form groups that the community has gone through a bureaucratic process of officially sanctioning. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically we already allow all that. Maybe 2 or more competing paradigms might work, but you do need enough people to man them all! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If the community (or a vocal subset thereof) thinks that your group's work is unhelpful to the encyclopedia, though, don't they typically try to crush and salt it? (E.g., WP:Esperanza, WP:AMA) Who's to say that if someone tried to start a legislature, that they wouldn't attack it (through MFD, or by placing a rejected tag on it) for the same reasons (i.e. "too much bureaucracy," etc.) Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no, it depends. Design it right and they won't. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Be God, get it right the first time. So what's the problem? WP:PRX was a proposal to simply set up proxy files and see what happens. An experiment, no policy changes. There was no specific application that was actually part of the proposal, merely some suggestions of how some editors might use the information generated. What was wrong with it? Well, it was "REJECTED." By whom? Two editors, basically, Kim "God" Bruning, and Mangojuice. Kim's rejection was perhaps, prescient, as befits his middle name. Mangojuice, however, soon joined by some others, radically misrepresented the concept, and what was rejected was, largely, "voting." Which wasn't part of the proposal itself. So, sure, if we can somehow come up with the perfect proposal.... lotus born .... nah, I still think it would be rejected. I decided this about myself long ago: if God himself presented me with the perfect idea, I'd reject it. I'm sure I'd find something wrong with it. It takes time to understand new ideas, usually. If they were really so obvious that everyone would immediately accept them, first time they hear about it, we'd already be doing it. On the other hand, if we can just figure out the perfect presentation, and surely God would get it absolutely right, with every possible phony argument presented and refuted .... oops! nobody would read it. Too long. --Abd (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So ask someone who knows what they're doing? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec's later) For what it's worth, I generally agree with Kim. There does seem to be a bit too much work thrown at ArbCom in particular, and having the other processes be more active would help a lot. By which, I mean quicker responses. Unfortunately, I for one ain't even close to being mediator material. It also might help if there were a perhaps more clearly "rigid" formalized process of progression there, so that people don't go to ArbCom as soon as they're annoyed. Personally, don't know much anything about wikinews, so can't say anything there one way or another. The only point I would likely dispute is the "top down don't work" point, only because I don't think that, if it was structured right, the group in question would ever do that sort of thing, except maybe by "persuasion" by Jimbo, the legal office, maybe ArbCom, situations like that. Regarding the group structure, I think a parallel to ArbCom, maybe with regular reports in the Signpost, would match the criteria Kim laid out. Basically, based on the other data, around 30-50 people, probably formally or informally broken into groups, should meet those criteria. There might be problems getting enough people for the "rapid-response" factor to work, but it should be doable. Regarding Chin's points, if a system works, and it works well, I don't think the special interest opponents would have enough support to win a delete. Check to see how many times the XfD pages themselves have been nominated for deletion. If the bureaucracy is minimal, and the results are good, the enemies of the system will almost certainly be outnumbered by its supporters. John Carter (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add "Anything relating to Wikipedia:Notability" to the list of underlying issues. It's probably the most controversial page with a checkmark at the top, and typically generates at least one arbcom case every few months, all the way back to 2005. Nifboy (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibility of binding content mediation

Why do I have a feeling that this is going to get a lot of negative reaction? Anyway, as ArbCom has specifically said on several occasions, they do not deal with content questions, but behavior questions. That's fine, no reason to change that. But it does not address the fact that there often are questions regarding content which lead to articles being locked, editors being blocked or banned, and the like. Presumably, in most such cases, both sides are trying to present their positions accurately. The question, however, still remains. Maybe something like this could be proposed:

• (1) After a given discussion has been through RfCs, and other such attempts to resolve disputes, if the problem still remains, it is likely that the article will be at least somewhat locked for some time regarding the dispute. After or during one such lock, it might be possible and useful to propose that the disputing parties agree to binding mediation regarding the content in question. Such binding mediation would not necessarily be an "official" process. However, if parties on both sides agree that they will accept the results of the binding content mediation, then the mediated outcome could be seen as being binding, at least in regards to the evidence presented up to that time.
• (2) Under such a setup, the parties involved in the dispute would present their positions and evidence to support their positions to the mediation panel. We're probably thinking about a group of about the size of ArbCom. Individual members of such a panel who could reasonably be seen as having a potential conflict of interests for whatever reason could be asked to recuse themselves from certain discussions, but there would probably still be enough members to present a reasonable body to hear the case.
• (3) This body would review the evidence presented by those who have already been involved in the discussion, and any other parties who they might ask to present information to them, and, eventually, decide based on the evidence presented how the content should be adjusted, if at all. They could also indicate, if the case is simple enough, what kinds of evidence would be required for the content regarding a particular point of dispute to be reasonably changed. Should evidence that qualifies be produced, then there would be just cause to change. Also, of course, if the material related to the content of the article changes subsequently in a broader sense, by having new material relating to the subject come out, then the content in general would be of course subject to change.

By creating the group as an unofficial group whose decisions the disputants acknowledge to be binding, we might be able to dodge the "formal policy" problems, while still providing a way to resolve the matter at hand. And, considering that such a process would only be necessary in the case of a seemingly intractable dispute, I think the chances of it being used are ultimately rather good. Anyway, like I said in the beginning, I expect some criticism of the idea, because I know it is still only a basic one. Feel free to fire away. John Carter (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The roads saga might be instructive in this area as a lesson/case study. (some may say a case study on how NOT to resolve content matters :) ... there was significant deviation from the consensus process, by consensus, or alternatively, by fiat, depending on who you talk to, in some parts of the resolution process) I'll try to dig up a few pointers for further reading if there's interest. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept of binding mediation crops up in mediation circles from time to time. You could try canvas medcom and medcab and 3O about this. :-) They might bite. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think binding content mediation would be good. Right now the best we can do is hope that a non-binding solution sticks or wait for people to start being disruptive so arbcom will handle it. Mr.Z-man 23:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy patrol

Wikipedia:Policy_patrol is currently unused. It meets many of the above requirements, except there's no real drive behind it. Could we extend that concept, or get a couple more vigorous editors on board? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

heh it has a talk with Kim first rule still in there? That's nice for an early start, but that might need some changing. :-) <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why we need this - a case study

An excellent example of community consensus based decision failing to scale is the "discussion" that, among other things, resulted in the "rollback" right being implemented.

What happenened?

Feel free to fill in any gaps in the timeline

• Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators - an RFC-type discussion with about 20 different views. 65KB of discussion on the main page, 23KB talk.
• Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators proposal - the first proposal. After 92KB of talk page discussion, didn't really get anywhere.
• Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback - this is where most of the discussion took place, multiple straw polls and alternative proposals. 96KB on the main page, 353KB on the talk page (including archive)
• Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll - the main straw poll, split from the main page after closing. 455 "voters" - 215KB
• Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Archived proposals - 2 alternate proposals split from the main page. 47KB
• bugzilla:12534 - Bug request that resulted in it being turned on, 17 comments.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive121#Rollbackery - The first AN thread, 11KB
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive121#Wikipedia:Requests for rollback - discussion began shortly after the right was added. Multiple comments by Jimbo and a statement by Anthere. 82KB
• Rollback consensus RFAR - 35 statements, 73KB
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 4 - the talk page of the current process page shortly after it was implemented, about 4 days in January. 212KB
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for rollback - MFD of the process page, withdrawn after 9 minutes of discussion, 7KB
• Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Draft poll - Plan for a second poll. 23KB on the page, 35KB talk.
• Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote - another poll, this time a straight vote. 31KB and 153KB talk.
• Wikipedia:Rollback policy - failed proposal for a rollback policy, never got off the ground.

The results

The rollbacker right was implemented with admins able to grant and remove it and a stable process on WP:RFR was formed. After only 1.5MB of discussion, polling, voting, and arbcom - a new process (the policy proposal failed) was created. A slow motion edit war over whether Wikipedia:Requests for rollback was a disputed process carried on for a few weeks after the discussion calmed down and the Wikimedia shell users are unwilling to do things for enwiki after being threatened with ArbCom sanctions for turning on rollback.

Discussion

Now this may be the ideal way to add/change policies and processes, but reviewing it all, I don't think it is and it certainly isn't what's described at Wikipedia:Consensus. Mr.Z-man 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Our current way of adding new policy is far less than ideal as this example shows. This is a good example of what I meant when I said that our current process of forming policy is making too many people have really bad days. :-( While any process is going to lead to some disagreement, I think the need for dramatic actions to make change happen brings about needless discourse. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The vote on rollback I began is a great example of how people can kill things.[4] Shortly after it was clear that consensus was heading for rollback to go live, period, but with just a question of which form, the Vote was nuked from orbit. If the Vote had ended up being 300 for rollback with process, 200 for rollback with no process, and 50 against, it would have been clear that we had consensus for some form of rollback. We could have then done a simple final runoff vote between the two versions if needed, and done. But I'm convinced that some people are opposed to this sort of thing because it means that no one gets to personally be in charge of something, to decide consensus or own process or policy pages. The rollback saga is a fantastic example of the need for reform as outlined by Kirill. See also Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement for an example of how policy can come into being as the end-process of this idea. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The rollback saga and ATT saga are examples of what happens when people act in utter ignorance and contempt of the existent system. These two cases went against all documentation.

Any new system you put in place will be treated in the same way. There's nothing wrong with having a system. The problem is in making sure everyone knows and respects and works with the system.

This is the major problem with wikipedia. We're the new usenet, and or eternal september is dawning. We need to push that back as hard as we can, by helping, teaching, mediating, and educating. We don't do that by sitting around making up ever more elaborate ivory towers. :-)

We can work on this project or not, but in the mean time, Who here is willing to help me? There's plenty of work to go around.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, we can certainly push to educate new people, but the problem is that many people seem to agree that the old way itself is what is broken in regards to policy matters. IAR applies to our traditional ways of thought, as well. If something is preventing us from improving the encyclopedia, we ignore it. The classic methodology appears to be preventing us from improving policy to benefit the encyclopedia. Rollback, if my vote had been allowed to run, would have been fine. It would have been a clearly binary view of what consensus really was from a high altitude, just as the 3RR vote worked fine. ATT would have ran fine for it's vote process, had Jimbo not decided to interfere and override the community (which was headed to the same conclusion apparently as him: no consensus).

Would you say Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement was a success? Why, or why not? If voting is so wrong, why do we vote for arbiters and the WMF board rather than discussing it? Why did we vote repeatedly on the main page redesign? Were those successful? Wikipedia seemed to have survived them fine... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

ATT was headed for no consensus because it was so abysmally handled. It was not handled according to known best practices. If something is handled in a known pessimal way and it breaks: Do we blame the manual that says not to do that? Or do we blame ourselves?

Sure votes like that occasionally work, but then again occasionally votes like that asplode. The safety record could use some work ;-)

(And no, I intensely dislike the 3RR and the 3RR vote. 3RR gets gamed more than practically anything else on the wiki. Rule: "Hard Rules" are for gaming and trolling.

Note that Arbcom and WMF board are outside the wiki system. This is a very very old story: Summary: Different system, different tools. Right tool for right job. Voting on wiki-encyclopedia: BAD PLAN (1+1=3 gets 200 votes in support!). Voting elsewhere: DEPENDS.

I can expand on either point if you like. )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Did I mention that such votes are NOT according to best practice? Don't blame the current practice. Blame people not reading it. :-)

Best practice is clearly broken and owned by a small subset of users. It's time to take the 2003-2004 best practice out behind the toolshed and shoot it in the head. Anything that allows a tiny subsection of users to control the system is broken. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There were plenty of non-vote discussions in the rollback saga. The problem is twofold. 1) The sysadmins can't be bothered to read 10,000 words of threaded discussion to determine if there is a consensus. 2) Drive-by commentors who make a comment after seeing an RFC or a village pump notice then never return to discuss. The latter is more of a problem as far as the current system is concerned. Mr.Z-man 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Lawrence Cohen's comment of 21:29. Some people who OWN various policies do so in good faith. Another downside of the consensus system for policies is that, if a change isn't discussed or removed, it is presumed to have consensus. This means that, when someone randomly edits a policy page in some way that doesn't have consensus, someone has the unpleasant task of undoing it at some point. But any significant change that is broadly advertised is unlikely to gain consensus in the first place.

An example of this is a recent change to NFCC#8; the person who changed the policy did so in good faith, and thought the change had consensus, but it didn't. It took a very long time before another user reverted the change. But really there hasn't been consensus for the present version of NFCC for some time.

Personally, I would be very happy to delegate my voice in shaping policy to a committee if I knew everyone else was doing so as well, and knew that I would have a voice in selecting the committee. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be another example of having policy gatekeepers in a format organized by the community. Just take all the present pages tagged policy, put them under their stewardship (which amounts to them playing gatekeeper for the community) and then our community-delegated group would mediate the changes out for us. Policies are supposed to be somewhat static over time, but not because tiny handfuls of individuals control them. This would have the great effect of taking policy control away from any one or five or ten individuals, and giving it wholly to the "people". Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of NFCC, 7 editors (inadvertently) hogged the policy, and the people took it back none too gently. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure how handing power to a small group == handing power to the people. Is this the new newspeak? :-)

Carl: You People failed to follow documented policy, and suffered the documented consequences. I can imagine you folks might be somewhat unhappy about that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I'm starting to get the feeling that this talk page is manned mostly by people who didn't follow or didn't understand documented process, and got burned somewhere along the way. Is this true?

I wasn't actually involved in the NFCC change, until after someone else had reverted it, at which point I felt obligated to advocate for the free-content side of things. So I wasn't personally upset by it, but I can see how the people who advocated the change would feel put out. Also, I have to disagree there is "documented policy" on how to make policy. There isn't even consensus whether policies are normative or not, much less on how to make them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah sorry, did I mistake you for someone else? Apologies. (fixed).

These people felt put out because they didn't read what would happen if they worked that way. Who is to blame? I blame myself, for not being able to get that information to them on time. I only did a little bit of mediation post-hoc, which is technically already too late, of course.

There is no consensus on whether policies are normative or not? heh. Either they're normative, and consensus is a figment of our imagination, or they are not, and wikipedia is run by consensus. You decide. :-) Also, there's currently a document on how to create policy, and there are all the normal editing guidelines and essays, which also apply equally to policy. What kind of information are you missing? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC) This is why I feel that we should be working on the education aspect of this so heavily. Every time and every where we see that people don't understand how to use the systems at their disposal. Things can certainly be made more more clear and more obvious. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, we know how to use the systems at our disposal. I've personally suggested policy changes myself. The problem is that we (collectively) keep finding situations where a tiny group is self-empowered to stop any forward progress. Coupled with policy talk being limited to "insiders" who normally stay on the policy pages, it causes massive problems to ever do forward motion that has wide community support. You can't get 200 people to weigh in on WP:N's talk page. But if you had a central place... you could. For a true consensus that a minority of users couldn't game or stop. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Can you show me this insidious minority someplace? :-)

In the mean time, 200 >> 150. Dunbar's number is for social groups what the critical mass is for uranium. You don't want to go over that value. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC) And you can't legislate different values for e, π, or Dunbar's number

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler: A minority of users rammed through a change to eliminate spoilers. WP:ATT was drafted and forced through by a minority of users. Rollback was rammed through by a minority of users. Wikipedia:Private correspondence was nuked by a very small number of users. Any one of these could have turned out quite, quite differently had they received a wide communal review. Not an insidious minority, but no minority let alone one user (Jimmy included, who no longer owns this site, and matters less now) is entitled to the ability to stop a policy change. See my Example below. No one small tiny group could stop a policy change like that if the community endorsed it. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

what's stopping you from bringing those back up again? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He probably would rather not be involved in another month's worth of discussion that will likely end up confirming the status quo, as happens to most significant policy discussions. Mr.Z-man 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is due to a new discussion being 99% of the same people. Its just like us trying to sway Kim here. He appears to be unwilling to be swayed, and if that is the case, if he said so, we would be spared a month of trying, and could move on to convincing other editors of our perceived need for this change. Would that be bad faith, to ignore Kim and move on to others, and hoping to build a consensus that bypasses him? This is why a system like this is needed. No games, no waste of time discussion for the sake of discussion. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's totally unfair. I've actually helped out by listing the basic requirements that you need to meet to have a viable wiki-group. How about instead of accusing me of stonewalling, we start thinking of ways to get all those to fit together, eh? :-) Now who is stonewalling whom? Start out with a small set of wiki-pages, and note how people behave on those. Notice how mediawiki already covers most of the requirements? Now without going against the grain too much, start blocking out your system. Do you need help with that? (or is this going to end up like my discussions with Esperanza about their need to reform?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) And yes folks have made viable wiki-groups before in recent history, and yes they meet those requirements, and groups that didn't make the cut did get MFD'd... so no whining, more working! No one said it's easy, but you say you want to do it. So less whining, more working!  :-P )

Lets try the focused side of things. Take a look at the new section I posted below--post your own understanding/pro/con, so we can understand and address point by point your concerns. And do a response to my own section, please. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with CCC is that it is very badly defined (I have the same problem with what you call decision-making by consensus - there is no formal process, so everybody can claim they are right). Just imagine a following example: 50 people have some policy page in their watchlist, and are happy with it. Each 2 days, a different person comes over the policy page and says, I disagree with the policy and want such and such change. Each time, some of these 50 people will respond - there is consensus for that now. This happens for 200 days. So, on one side, each individual that wanted change was clearly overruled by 50 individuals watching the page. On the other hand, there was 100 of such individuals, so actually more people support the change than there are people happy with the current policy. Now tell me, which side is right. Has the consensus changed or not? Samohyl Jan (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus changed on day 1. There's two approaches. The first is that the person who goes away watchlists the page, and when a 2nd person comes along, they now can second that person... so the pair of them are less likely to be sent away.

The other approach is to directly WP:BRD, which allows you to talk with each of those 50 people, one by one, and convince each one that your method is better. (Though that might take up to 50 days. Fortunately, in real life you typically only need to convince a handful of people, so you might need less than a week of evenings, say).

Or you can combine the two approaches. And you can draw in other people who use the same method to come and discuss. And other people will slowly start to show up.

The methods you can use are not vague at all. Each of those pages has actual white-line points where you can know exactly what to do, and what will likely happen next.

Does that make sense so far? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion section break 1

I think the rollback saga is actually a better argument for more formal polling procedures than the creation of a policy commission. As Lawrence says, had we had proper poll procedures, the mess largely wouldn't have happened. As to all the scrabblings after the devs implemented it, a lot of that was consensus editing. Some people felt there should be another poll, and through consensus editing the idea was considered and dismissed. Consensus, isn't pretty, but at times it gets where it is going. I believe people will more readily accept decisions made through this sort of manner than those handed down by some sort of committee. Remember the userbox saga? Consensus editing has pretty much solved that. I think the problem you are trying to solve is only a problem if you take the view that a decision has to be made on everything immediately. As to filibustering, there's been a lot of that at WP:FICT recently, but in the last couple of days I think people just realised they could simply edit the thing rather than continually answer and rebut objections, and it is now moving a lot faster. Eventually it will reflect consensus. I don't know when, but is there a deadline? Hiding T 12:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that many people only dislike polls and voting even as a barometer of consensus is because it limits the ability to skew or manipulate the "perception" to whatever our desired ends are. Thats why we in AFD or RFA tend to attack responses they disagree with. Not to sway the poster (which almost rarely happens), but to make the poster's ideas look unappealing to other !voters. Conducting a poll or vote minimizes the power of each participant to being just one-of-many, and heavens forbid everyone be equal. That would be bad. ;) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. My experience in discussions with people about direct democracy shows that they have problem understanding democracy at all, and they often expect either that someone enlightened will decide in things in their favor, or that they are part of the enlightened few who have natural right to decide for others. Samohyl Jan (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, you realise that you've listed proof of the exact opposite above, don't you? Two polls on rollback, both ending in 67% support, one declared no consensus and one declared consensus. Some of the best disputes on Wikipedia are over how to interpret poll results. Have you looked at the way the pass %'s have changed at RFA and RFB over the years? Dickering over poll results and trying to skew them is in the top ten of what Wikipedians do best. Hiding T 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and polls don't make everyone equal on Wikipedia. Have you voted in every poll that is currently open? Polls make everyone aware of the vote and who vote equal. Consensus is the only method which makes everyone equal, because at any moment at any time I can change anything. With a poll, you miss the poll and it's done. Bye bye, tough luck, because we had a poll and our survey said, and that's what we're doing. You can't change that now, and no we're not redoing the poll because the result would be the same. Polls are evil. Hiding T 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Hmm, and here I thought you might be talking about XfD, as some people view it : ) - jc37 05:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Example, from how the ideas feel today

If I'm following what the supporters of reform generally are in agreement over...

I feel User-conduct RFCS should be certified by 3 or 4 involved people, rather than 2, to help cut down on frivolous and useless RFCs. I post my request and reasoning to someplace like WP:Proposed policy changes. A notification of my request goes to the User conduct RFC talk page linking back to the discussion I initiated. The Group, or Delegates, weigh in with their opinions but do not have the ability "nix" or automatically enforce my change. The general community then weighs in on the discussion. If there is clear public support for my change on the proposal page, after x amount of time, the discussion is tagged "success", and one of the Group makes the appropriate changes, and you now have a new standard for User conduct RFCs. If my idea fails, the policy and it's enforcement stays the same. Any users attempting to edit the policy page to change it arbitrarily would be reverted back--the policy page is thus "bound" strictly to wide consensus in a central forum. The Group are essentially selected for their policy experience to offer opinion and policy analysis but have no authority but to revert out and protect policy from forced attempts at change outside a wide community acceptance.

Am I getting this right? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You would have to be very careful. There's a major flaw in the "discuss first" paradigm when applied to wikipedia. It provides a loophole for filibuster. People tried modeling a consensus process with enforced discuss first, and they failed to find one that did not have this flaw.

So if you want to enforce that, you will need to flowchart your process carefully to be sure that you don't get bitten by that same bug.

so ... I think your proposal as it stands basically hands the keys to the wiki to the filibusters... :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC) in fact, in large lines this process looks pretty much like one of the "enforced filibuster discussion" models we were working on. ^^;; I orignally thought those models would turn out to be a bit inefficient, but that that might be a survivable compromise. Instead, they turned out to be unworkable.

But that's the case with the present model as well; any time you want to change an enforced policy, you need to discuss the change beforehand.

The key, I think, is limiting the ability of small groups of obstinate editors to tire everyone out, driving them away from the discussion. We need a method by which we can readily cause the community to make a decision on a proposal, rather than dragging "discussion" on interminably. Kirill ^(P) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically I have found and documented that this is not true. You can typically break through the barriers that people erect. Once you have found the people blocking a situation and negotiated with them, you can then continue using more regular wiki-editing.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC) part of doing BRD right is to get people to stop talking about policy this and policy that, and start talking about what they actually think is the best outcome (you can practice this concept by mediating a lot of disputes). As they approach that point, consensus slowly begins to work normally again.

If your first bold move gets you desysopped or banned, that tends to make further discussion rather difficult, at best. Not everything is so lacking in prescriptive provisions as you would have people believe; there are definitely parts of policy that one chooses to ignore at one's own peril. Kirill ^(P) 00:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'll cover the ignore at one's peril a bit later, because that's very interesting. But before then, this bit has me concerned much more: Desysopping and banning are the responsibility of the arbitration committee. You yourself therefore already have a measure of control and responsibility over whether the process works or not. Did you realize the extent of that before starting this page? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes; why do you think I started it? For at least as long as I've been on the Committee, the policy formation process has been very broken; almost ubiquitously, attempts to introduce significant changes to core policy—policy dealing with the use of admin tools in particular, but that's by no means the only case—have resulted in wide-spread edit-warring, wheel-warring, and other forms of highly disruptive conflict, with the predictable bannings and desysoppings following as a result. Further, several key areas of policy remain undefined or contradicted by other policy, turning things like the community ban process into a game of Russian roulette for any admin that uses their tools in those contexts.

(The alternative to what I've proposed here, I suspect, would be increasing imposition of policy changes by way of ArbCom fiat, as we've already done in a number of cases. I think, personally, that a more democratic and less ad-hoc method would be better for the long-term health of the project.) Kirill ^(P) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we already covered that. Don't impose changes. The system is designed to resist that. (aka. "Descriptive not Prescriptive"), My mentor who taught me that still happens to be on the arbcom mailing list. Did you think to ask him for advice? :-) There is also documentation that states that doing this kind of thing is most unwise. Descriptive policy really is that, descriptive. It can be very powerful indeed at times. Even the arbcom can get into trouble if it doesn't follow it, let alone normal editors. And indeed, it sounds like that is exactly what happened. Flaunting the basic principles caused much drama. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ignore policy at your peril indeed!

Amusing, but I don't really subscribe to the "Wikipedia policy is perfect and needs no changes" school of thought. Much of it is like a leaky old boat; it kind of works in the nominal case, but starts sinking in the slightest rough spots.

(In any case, ArbCom has had little trouble imposing changes; it's more that we don't really want to be in that position. It's other editors' attempts at causing change that tend to blow up in their faces.) Kirill ^(P) 02:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I'll be the last person to ever say that policy is perfect and doesn't need changing. Wikipedia exists in a changing world, so policy needs to adapt with it. The interesting thing is that some people actually would like to keep policy static instead.

I hope the arbcom hasn't had too much recent experience with imposing changes. :-P And I agree that editors should learn how to alter things in a safe way. <scratches head> I think it's easy because I've been doing it for ages. You're saying it's too difficult for other folks? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When are the last three times you made a significant change of a policy on a non-technical matter, that would have had behavioral impacts on Wikipedia, and received push-back from other editors? How long did the push-back last? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully never. You have it backwards. I don't want to impact behaviour on wikipedia, I want to document which behaviors work.

Other than that, define significant edits? Sometimes improved understanding can be expressed in a single line (like removing the "non-negotiable" text from all policies... people thought it meant they could "non negotiate" their way out of situations :-P You're probably laughing now, but boy was that annoying to mediate! Definitely significantly improves my blood-pressure, that.) , sometimes a page needs a cleanup and has been significantly rewritten (like Wikipedia:Consensus). And sometimes convincing people to change their behavior (such as allowing non-latin Wikipedia:Usernames) allows for improved cooperation between wiki's.

Remember, these things just document best practices. The intent is not to change people's behavior directly... (though if documenting best practices teaches people better ways to achieve their aims, then that's what it's for eh? :-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Er... I think we're just having fundamental disconnects here as you tend to stay on the meta side of issues and a lot of us have fought over behavioral control policies--thats what they are--like WP:CIV, the banning and blocking policies, PRIVATE; various content (the most important policies of all as they effect our articles) issues like Notability, ATT, SPOILER, Fiction, and the grand poohbahs, NPOV and BLP, probably our most important policies (try implying that BLP is not non-negotiable, see how far that gets you). Have you ever tried to implement any changes to policy on any possibly controversial policies? Or just the fluffy ones? No offense. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And, Kim, has anyone ever blockaded your policy changes, in the past? When? How did you resolve it? Provide example, please. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Break 1

When was the last time BRD worked for any significant change to a policy? It tends to either be BRRRRRR or BRDRDRDRDRDRDR. Mr.Z-man 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Today. :-) FT2 applied BRD, and I did major edits in return. (or you can look at it backwards, I did major edits, and FT2 reverted... the situation is more fluid with experienced editors.) I conceded mostly to FT2. Check our edit logs. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was on an obscure technical description page, not a core policy. I rather doubt even someone of your persuasive talents could freely change something like the blocking policy in a significant way and not get caught up in either edit-warring or interminable debate; and the average editor has no chance at all. Kirill ^(P) 02:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is basically a near-identical request to the rollback permission one. This time I figured I'd get in on it early and prevent a redo. ;-)

But alright. A core policy? I managed to make a change in the NPOV policy recently. Does that count?

But you're saying it's too hard for people? It seems to be easy enough for other people too, at least, whenever I'm around. <scratches head> Would my presence be influencing my observations? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think your presence would influence things. You're profoundly on the "descriptive policy" side of things; when you change a policy page, it is almost certain to be a mere change of the text, not preparation for any sort of enforcement of the newly-written policy, and I expect it is regarded as such. To put it quite simply, I don't think you're seen as a threat.

Changes to things like the various administrative policies, on the other hand, usually come down to a question like "Do we block for X?" (regardless of how it's worded); and it's typically quite obvious that the question is not merely a theoretical one. So we immediately have at least two groups (the presumptive blockers and the presumptively blocked) which are on opposite sides of the matter, and which have a very direct and practical stake in the outcome. It's pretty much the same thing with the other major policies governing administrative actions (which, at this point, function essentially as normative ones, regardless of what the theoretical underpinnings might be), as well as some of the more-useful-as-hammers-in-disputes content policies (which are also becoming increasingly enforced as normative standards). Kirill ^(P) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved in WP:BRD at WP:CIV the last couple of days. I remember rewriting WP:SOCK a while back. Um... there's been some BRD at WP:DPR and WP:DGFA involving me recently. Back in March me and Jc37 managed to capture consensus with a change to WP:NOR such that sourcing is not always complicated. Are those helpful? Hiding T 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am involved in changing policy though. Generally when doing one kind of dispute resolution or another, folks come across diverse issues where the policies are unclear or simply give bad advice. We then discuss better ways of doing things. Later when the dispute or problem is resolved, someone will tend to write down how to prevent similar problems in future. Sometimes that's me. And actually that's how I got into maintaining policy you see. Now I guess you're seeing the same things? But you're going about it with a rather grand gesture, I must say. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I've also been known to tell off admins who do something stupid :-P

(Outdent) Do you all notice the general deference that the community gives to the ArbCom? In my opinion, this is because the community recognizes the need for a certain few to have decisive authority in dealing with certain matters in order to maintain, for lack of a better term, law and order in the project. One reason that the community is willing to give deference to the ArbCom is because the members are elected in a fairly democratic process in which every vote, support or oppose, has equal weight. The same idea should work for a PolCom. I believe that a democratically elected committee comprised of a sufficient number of members will enjoy community support in managing the policies and considering community inputs for changes and modifications. Cla68 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I share this view, Cla68. Based on my interaction with the Community, I think the majority of the Community would welcome a more organized way to create and review Wikipedia policy. The Policy Committee's role would be to oversee Policy related matters. The Community should still play a large role in policy development and review but now an organized system would be in place to make policy changes. If done well this Committee will make routine policy changes discussions more effective and less contentious, and the result will be policy that the majority of the Community understands to be an accurate statement of the way that Wikipedia works. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have high hopes. I've seen committees operate in the wiki-world before. I'm not particularly impressed by them. Are you sure they won't make the situation worse, rather than better? The community gives deference to arbcom, because the arbcom follows the rules set by the community. If it goes too far outside that remit, things start to get shaky. (a similar story applies to medcom).

A fun fact is that you can insert just about any subsystem into the community in a similar way (so it's not impossible to add a new subsystem). Just if it's slow and ponderous and doesn't keep up, it can just as easily slide downhill (vide WP:AMA, and even at one point almost WP:MEDCOM, until they vigorously tidied up their act.) Committees don't have infinite credit, and I'm not sure how much of that credit comes from being elected. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Why listen to me? Well, check out the AMA debates for instance. Basically the old medcab jumped in in style :-) . Nicholas Turnbull was trying to reform AMA, I was covering for Editor Assistance, a new scalable replacement. Either solution would be a win (in the end EA won out). Also note the closers in the MFD debates. ;-) We adhered strictly to policy, and were a neutral 3rd party, but obviously we were very involved.

Month long polls

Here's an idea. Any wikidrama which blows up over a binary issue should be put to a month long poll, poll closed by a bureaucrat and results chewed over by editors. A month seems long enough for people to work out a consensus on the issue through editing so much so that the results of the poll will be fairly obvious. Because really, want causes the problem in the first place is the drama, not the individual opinions. Everyone wants to have their input. Give them a poll and a month to express it, who knows what will happen. And it doesn't harm the consensus method. It actually strengthens it, because after the month there'll be an indication of the direction to take. We could have a little chart for how to interpret polls, like:

• 90% or above support -> This is the way to go.
• 80 - 90% support -> This is the way to go, slowly.
• 70-80% support -> This may be the way to go, with caveats.
• 60-70% support -> This is nearly the way we may be going, but people going the other way need to be compromised with. We're going off at a related tangent instead.
• 50-60% support ->Draw up a page expressing both sides of the situation, with the one with majority at the top, making it clear both views are equal and editors shouldn't edit war to get their preferred version.

Yes, it's half assed, but it's the germ of an idea. Hiding T 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a role for polling in conjunction with a new Policy Committee. The Policy Committee would work with the Community to develop better ways to create and review policy. Polls can have a role in assisting with determining policy. But having stand alone polls be the final determinate is a problem. Polling as now done on Wikipedia is too often flawed to find consensus. Many issues that seem binary are not. For them to work there needs to be a long organized discussion period prior to the poll. Then a well thought out poll written. These efforts take someone knowledgeable about the specific issues, existing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Polls can be a good tool if used properly. Having a Committee make use of them when appropriate would be a good idea. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Decision cycles need to be fast. Can you think of methods to speed up your decision cycle considerably? If you're going to actually make the decision cycle take longer, then not only is there less heat, there's also less light (as well as more room for issues to sneak through the gaps). So that'd be somewhat unhelpful. Can you think of a way to get your own (proposed) decision cycles either a) faster, or b) get them to produce less "heat" (conflict) without slowing them down?

Also, would this method supplement in-the-field policy making, or would it supplant it, in your opinion? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC) The question is really how quickly can we get feedback on actions back to the people taking them. And how do we ensure that feedback is summarized and documented. hmm..

Why do decision cycles need to be fast? Thats not the point of this, at least I've read it. An RFA-physical layout to the page, perhaps, with a week for feedback, and a week for polling, to toss out an example. That's about as long as any policy discussion I've seen is useful and consensus is almost always clear on a change in under a month. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason why decision cycles need to be fast is the subject of stacks of literature rather too large to supply here. You can start at OODA loop and keep on reading from there. ;-) Obviously, if your decision cycle is too long, you'll tend to "miss the boat", make a decision after the problem is long gone. if your cycle is short enough, then you can rely on making small incremental improvements, rather than large world-shifting improvements all the time, That reduces stress. Finally in a real-world environment, the organization of system with the shortest decision cycle holds the initiative. The strategic importance of initiative is left for another day. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With an organized review of policy the need for changes can be noted sooner and different approaches to addressing the problems can be initiated before a crisis develops. Currently, too often changes are made in the middle of difficult situations and do not stick because they are reactionary. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, I can live with more upfront review work. At the same time, inflexibility in the face of crisis can lead to an organization breaking, not bending. So we need to at least retain flexibility. Does that make sense? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, are you serious? On one side, you argue that "there is no need for change current processes" and "policies are descriptive". On the other hand, you say "decision cycles need to be fast". What exactly do you want to accomplish by discussing here? Is it just me, or do also other people feel you are just trolling? Samohyl Jan (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is all stonewalling to prevent the old-timers from having less power on Wikipedia control matters. :( Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I am arguing to at least retain the current system alongside anything new we make, at least as a backup. On the other hand, if people positively must make a new system, then we had better darn well do the best job we can (see also#Moving_forward_rapidly), so I'm contributing to that side of the discussion too, rather than simply stonewalling it.

I believe this approach shows that I'm willing to cooperate and shows a will to compromise and find middle ground (and in fact I'm doing it that way quite deliberately, to make sure that I'm not stonewalling, because I hate it just as much when people do it to me :-P ). Would you be willing to withdraw your accusation, or do you wish to let it stand? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Kim. Any system change designed to specifically take power away from the 'minority' in policy matters is key for long term growth here. I'm glad you agree we need this, and need to do it right. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the act of taking power away from anyone (called disenfranchisement), is a bad idea, and should be vigorously opposed wherever it rears its ugly head. What I'm willing to contribute to is a system that potentially equally gives everyone more power and control over wikipedia. Fair enough? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC) In short: less taking, more giving. :-)

But this is power they should not have to begin with, as it's contrary to our ways that anyone can bring forward change with support. NO minority is authorized or empowered under our policies to dictate how things are to happen on this sort of thing. Why would we endorse a system that allows a tiny group to hold sway over a larger body? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was being (deliberately) harsh. Because frankly, you have more proposals and comments on this page than other people combined, and your position is still not quite clear to me; which is kinda sad considering that what I understand from comments of other people discussing here, they all agree with the following:

• Wikipedia decision making process is broken, and sometimes ends with status quo, where (powerful) minority wins over (scattered) majority.
• There is a need for more rigid rules of decision making, which should make gaming the system harder.
• Voting (or polling) is not a bad thing.

We may differ on details, such as if there should be an elected decision-making body, or how exact procedures should work, but I believe we all agree with the 3 above points (if anyone wants to correct me, go ahead). So, if you claim you want to find a "middle ground", this is a middle ground in the group discussing on this page. I don't know what group you want to find middle ground in you have in mind, but if you mean some larger group than that, you should say, what points above you disagree with and why. Samohyl Jan (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with all those points. Rigid rules are game-able rules, voting has failed spectacularly on wikipedia, many times over. Decision making does not typically end in status quo, and there are known methods to prevent that. (as discussed elsewhere on this page)

But before I discuss that further with you, we have a more immediate problem. You have accused me of trolling. Are you willing to withdraw that accusation? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, the Policy Committee will be tasked with improving the way that policy is created, reviewed, and changed. Like in most large organizations, there are different types of policy. The core policies, that affect everyone, need to have broad review prior to changing them. Wikipedia will benefit from getting more peoples input prior to changing core policy. Some of the issues involved are complex and need to have in depth discussion in order to decide which approach is the best policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

However, the committee will not be issued a magic wand, sadly. So we need to figure out real world ways in which the committee can actually achieve those goals, right? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wide, wide view of policy changes and proposals in a format that allows the most possible people to weigh in with support or dislike of the changes will be the Magic Wand in question. The PolCom or whatever its called is just what will organize that. Getting policy control out of the hands of small numbers of people is the Magic Wand. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still unsure why you believe that policy is controlled by small numbers of people. But see above. I have no problems ensuring that everyone has a say. What I want to prevent is the situation where we start taking away power from anyone. Along that path lies dictatorship, not democracy (or consensus) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The old model of Jimbo dictating change and/or any small minority being able to stonewall or filibuster any change is exactly what you describe, and exactly what this new model by Kirill will shoot dead. Whats a more fair way to decide a policy change? 5-20 people deciding on a policy talk page, and then a handful of people being able to stop their changes? Or a system where the policy change is broadcast in a very public place, everyone gets to say their peace, and then everyone collectively decides the outcome? How is that possibly dictatorial? I think you're grasping now, to try to poison the idea of something that will kill a traditional way of doing things for a new way. Tradition is useless if its not able to grow and evolve. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that 20 people trying to make a decision for everyone on a talk page is reprehensible. That is what I call prescriptive policy making, and what you happen to describe is the worst form of that.

Many want to have the situation where people get together and collectively decide things, but I'm not even quite happy with that. Though I can live with it, if that means people have at least thought things through upfront... see discussion with Flonight above)

My preference is for decisions to organically be made in the field, and people can then document how people in the field are deciding. That's what I've been doing. (see my discussion with Kirill about that. He thinks that that's entirely uncontroversial even... though that's not true unfortunately).

My problem with several proposals made here is that they haven't actually been thought through very well. I've seen a lot of systems and proposals come and go over time. So some of the proposals here are repeats or variants of things that are actually known to cause some of the ills that these "new" ideas purport to cure :-( . So I guess I'm saying that people should actually be systematic and think carefully, not just make things up willy-nilly --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Basing it on just "field work" is flawed if based on one's own perception. Any one of us sees only a tiny portion of the behemoth that is Wikipedia, and nothing more. What 10, 20, or 30 people do in the field is not a baramoter of what the other 9,000 active users are doing or even want. Kiril was not wrong, he right: try doing that stuff to a meaty, important policy (banning/blocking, BLP, Notability, V, RS, or NPOV) and see how fast it gets revert warred back over time. Even if 40 users are doing something, that's a miniscule fraction of who we are. Not enough. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I did actually edit NPOV recently, remember? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, on review, it looks like it's going to need some more work, as things are starting to slip back in again. <scratches head>. That is the one problem of maintaining policy. Non-best practices keep slipping back in as well, over time, as less experienced editors sometimes add information that was already fixed. That's very different from claims being made here though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Kim, yes, you're right, the decision model needs to be fast. That's why the poll should be a month long. So that it takes the drama out of actually solving the problem, and allows the problem to get solved rather swiftly before the poll ends. The poll isn't the solution to the problem. The poll is the solution to the problem which is stopping the problem getting solved, which is that everyone wants to own the solution. Sticking a month long poll in front of everyone makes it quite clear that no-one gets to own the solution. But perhaps that's too clever. Hiding T 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  Oh. I see. That IS clever. <scratches head> First clever thing I've seen here , to be frank ^^;; Has some downsides too though, of course, but you've probably thought of that too. I wonder if there's a way to cover that? <scratches head some more> --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  I haven't solved all the issues. Personally I think it is unworkable, but often if you mention polling long enough people work on a consensus method to avoid even discussing polling. Hiding T 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  (I wonder if that's like putting a rejected tag on a discussion...) - jc37 05:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

AN clerks

Hmmm, continuing from the small note above, possibly we could use some WP:AN clerks to write down outcomes of AN debates in a useful summary fashion, and to categorize them in useful ways. This would end up being useful documentation of consensus all by itself, possibly more useful than the current policy system, in fact .... <scratches head>. Can anyone tell me why this wouldn't work? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For some topics a quick discussion works. But other topics need to have in depth review to learn whether the situation can be improved with changes and if so what type of changes. Anecdotal comments can trigger in depth review but alone should not be the basis for changing some types of policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but discussion alone doesn't work either. You need to discuss, test, discuss, test, and discuss again. A bit like the scientific method, you might say. And AN already provides that platform. So we've basically been sitting on a potential treasure trove that we haven't begun to adequately tap yet. :-) So how can we begin to use that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, having access to better organized discussions will definitely help. AN and AN/I are searchable. If we add keywords when we close discussions, maybe it will make the discussions more useful in a meta way. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Understanding, Pros, and Cons to Kirill's model

Feel free to add to here, but please use the formatting listed and move threaded discussion to the discussion/reply section so this stays organized and useable.

Lawrence Cohen

Understanding of how it works

My understanding of this is that the PolCom, or The Group, whatever they will be called, will be simply stewards and advisors over policy matters, with no official power beyond making sure that no one tries to force through policy change without wide consensus. All new/major (i.e. non-trivial) changes to policy (elevating guidelines to policy, substantive changes, etc.) will be organized in a central place like WP:Proposed policy changes. People will post proposals in a simple format (maybe a physical "layout" like RFA, AFD, or DRV). The PolCom will weigh in with their views and opinions over perhaps a week, then the entire community gets to weigh in for 1-4 weeks (to be determined for length) in a poll/RFA/AFD/DRV style, with the usual threaded discussion below that. If the idea has support, policy is changed. If not, not. Try again later, since consensus can change. Policy talk pages will be still used to discuss policy in general, and to nurture ideas for change--but substantive change must be enacted in this manner for the widest review and to judge the true consensus and authority of the community. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Pros

1. Easy tracking of policy change and evolution.
2. Provides a high-level view of what true consensus on a given policy proposal/change is.
3. With it's apparent 3-section system ("Policy Committee review/analysis", "Poll", "Discussion") provides a very clear 3-part easy to read and follow overview of where consensus on the matter is from veteran users (the PolCom), everyone else (Poll), and then provides for detailed discussion below (Discussion).
4. Centralizes all pending/proposed policy changes, so that none can ever catch any part of our userbase unaware. Everyone knows what is possibly changing and can speak up.
5. The clear "Polling", similar to RFA/DRV/AFD prevents any small groups from stonewalling, filibustering, or otherwise taking an inappropriate superior position over the majority of users.
6. Keeps our principles of discussion for change--but just reformats its layout to encourage participation from many more people, as it should be.
7. Makes all established users as close to equal as possible for policy decisions, as it should be.

Cons

1. Possibly delays obvious or "quick" changes to written policy, but such changes without demonstrated support may not have value anyway.
2. Slower, but more focused policy change and growth.

Support

• I support this. I would go for 4 week poll - change in policy isn't just an AfD, and more casual users may want to have their say too. Also, it should be noted what "has support" means, if it's just majority or 70% majority or what. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FloNight

Understanding of how it works

The model that Lawrence describes works for me as long as we include systematic review of current policy. Also much longer discussion that one week is needed for some topics so the Community can have a chance to collect information needed to make good choices.

Pros

• Flexibility
• Ongoing reviews

(more later)

Cons

(more later)

Kim Bruning

Understanding of how it works

Blocking of consensus can be at least partially explained a flowchart drawn by Kevin Murray, where he tried to include "discuss first" into the model.

In this variant of consensus process, an edit proposal can pathologically get caught in a loop with no change ever actually occurring. The loop runs from "should process continue"->"propose a compromise"->"is the result accepted" and back. As the "should process continue" box is not well defined, a skillful filibuster can easily get a "yes" each time

We found that that particular design lends itself especially well to filibuster and blocking of consensus. (see chart for details). Note that this is one of several charts documenting bad, good, and proposed simplifications of consensus process. Possibly we can make a page discussing all these at some point.

When looking at real life situations, it turns out that people have in fact already been applying variants of this method. What happens in reality is that a small group can hold out and WP:OWN a page for quite a while, until someone with WP:BRD skill comes along and breaks up the party. (I have done so occasionally over time). I'll admit that this situation has been getting somewhat worse over time, to the point where there has been a discussion about whether such behavior constitutes disruptive editing, see:Wikipedia_talk:DE#Blocking_consensus. Though I don't think it's disastrous yet, since so far we've been able to knock down those blockades, and get people editing according to the actual consensus process again.

Lawrence Cohen's understanding resembles this flowchart. The policy committee might seize control of the "should process continue" box, and perhaps improve things, but it's a very heavyweight approach to the problem.

Imho A better solution is to eliminate that step from the process. In current practice, this is done by enforcing some of the more optimal flows as documented at Wikipedia:Consensus (there's more documentation on talk page and in archives, for those who are interested.)

Pros

• It looks good on paper.
• If applied carefully, it can prevent people from blocking consensus, in a roundabout way.

Cons

• Single point of failure: If the wrong people get on the committee, they basically take power of the wiki.
• If the group is not careful, or if it is manned by people who don't understand the situation, it can very easily end up reinforcing existing deadlocks.
• reverting people or protecting policy pages is the best way to create deadlocks. This must either be prevented, or it must be compensated for elsewhere.
• Centralization on a large wiki leads to possibility of surpassing Dunbar's number. This must be eliminated, or the system will fail.
• Enforcing long procedures stretches the decision cycle (OODA loop) too long, and makes it impossible to come to timely resolutions. (the perfect is the enemy of the good). This must be prevented, or the community will out pace the new system, rendering it ineffective.
• Prescriptive policy is very hard to enforce on a large sprawling wiki. The group may want to stick to describing best practice, as is the current known best practice.
• Such commissions have been suggested before, once on enwiki (Wikipedia:Wikirules_proposal), and once on nlwiki as far as I can recall. In the case of the enwiki commission, the committee was strongly outpaced by the consensus system Wikipedia_talk:Simplified_ruleset#Historic_information. The final outcome of that situation can be found today at Wikipedia:Five pillars.

Hiding

Understanding of how it works

Basically it's a policy approval committee dressed up as a steering committee.

Pros

I can't actually think of any. May please policy wonks?

Cons

Secret mailing lists. Ulterior motives. Poor representation. The community becoming herded. Unnecessary. Anti-wiki. A shift in the power balance which currently leaves every editor equal. A new class of editor on Wikipedia. More process, when less is better. Every flaw inherent in every committee known. For example, over time they get dressed up in their own importance. After a while a seat on the committee becomes something to have just for having's sake, rather than for the actual purpose. It will eventually assume importance. The checks and balances are woefully inadequate and always will be. For instance, how long before only policy com is allowed to edit the policy com pages, and decide how the policy-com system works? And then we'll have policy clerks. It will institutionalise. There will be some form of systemic bias which will be hard to counter, since no committee can be as fully representative of the community as much as the community is of itself. It will factionalise debate. Probably many more. Look, I know why this being proposed, and I know people will dismiss this as worst possible case scenario, but have a look at how flawed other processes are criticised as being. Look at the problems IRC is causing. Look at the issues people have with arb-com. Look at the flaws in the RFA process. Look at the issues with AFD. They all exist, and no-one saw them coming or perhaps thought they were above them. If there really is a problem that has to be solved, then the board will solve it, because they're the ones who have to do stuff. The community can't be expected to solve everything, and it won't, because not everything can be solved. Look at all the articles on pederasty. WTF are we supposed to do about those? A lot of the issues we;re having aren't with consensus editing, they are with disruptive editors who are attempting to own issues, and who aren't being dealt with effectively by existing processes. It's not the fault of consensus, it's not a problem another committee will solve. It's a problem that dealing with disruptive editors in a better way will solve. Sorry, I haven't meant to stamp on people's feet too hard, but I really think this is a bad idea. We're all supposed to be equal. Hiding T 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Response to Kim Bruning

In regards to Kim's cons...

1. Single point of failure: If the wrong people get on the committee, they basically take power of the wiki.

   Actually, in my interpretation of Kiril's model, the "PolCom" can't take over the Wiki. They have no power but to basically interpret consensus, and make sure no one forces policy change without the public review Kiril's model pushes. They're advisors and gatekeepers, nothing else.

   Originally yes. But it's very easy for it to morph into something else. --Kim Bruning (talk)

   Easy enough to fix. We make it a mandate, like how "Arbcom doesn't do policy". Seperation of powers. Fixed. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

2. If the group is not careful, or if it is manned by people who don't understand the situation, it can very easily end up reinforcing existing deadlocks.

   They can't do this either, as they don't decide. The community still decides, just on a central/wider scale via a poll in support or opposition of the proposed change, plus the associated discussion. If the wider community doesn't want or wants the change, it happens. Thats how things should be.

   They guard the process, and they need to take special care, is what I mean --Kim Bruning (talk)

3. reverting people or protecting policy pages is the best way to create deadlocks. This must either be prevented, or it must be compensated for elsewhere.

   A wide review of changes as proposed by Kiril's model does exactly this. If there is a historic deadlock, exposing that deadlock to 100+ additional eyes will demonstrate the value of the various argued points quite quickly. Stupid ideas will die fast in this model, and good ideas will rise fast.

   100+ additional eyes in one place tends to slow things down to a crawl. --Kim Bruning (talk)

   I sincerely believe that this is the primary disconnect you're seeing with Kiril's proposal. Having the discusions structured in a manner like how RFA is will encourage more people to join in, and it will go swimmingly I think on this manner. If more people weigh in, great--the good ideas will shine, if the community really wants them, and the bad ones will sink like a rock. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Centralization on a large wiki leads to possibility of surpassing dunbar's number. This must be eliminated, or the system will fail.

   AFD and DRV seem to be working just fine. Anything that limits visibility of discussion or that requires or encourages babysitting of pages to get your way (policy wonks) is evil, and must be stopped as it encourages a ruling policy class.

   DRV is so obviously broken that I don't know how to respond to that. AFD is surprisingly actually working a little better than it used to. Not that this helps much, its hiccups still occasionally makes the presses on a slow news day, IIRC. But they do split discussions up over multiple pages, and make good use of the wiki. I wouldn't recommend that model, it's an ugly hack on top of an ugly hack with multiple templates and transclusions and bots, but it does work. It's not true that it's simply a centralized discussion page. That it most DEFINITELY is not.  :-P

   Like I mentioned on my talk page, we'll see what? 5, 10 proposals a month at most? We don't even have that many 'pending' policy changes now. I think the volume and an RFA-type physical layout with a few transcluded pages will work fine. It won't be any kind of an overload. DRV's fault is that it's mandate is ill-defined. It can use more structure. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Enforcing long procedures stretches the decision cycle OODA loop too long, and makes it impossible to come to timely resolutions. (the perfect is the enemy of the good). This must be prevented, or the community will out pace the new system, rendering it ineffective

   It's a darn good thing this process is pretty simple, then. Propose a change. The committee weighs in with views, discussion commences on the proposal page. A week or so later, we open up the poll/AFD/DRV/RFA etc. style part of the page. Consensus will be apparent readily then. The method is a formatted "Propose > Discuss > Decide" model.

   Okay, that's better, but now you have enforced time-limits. *sigh*. That CAN work, has worked in practice... but is not very nice. Nlwiki uses a system like that... a more factitious place you have never seen... I already don't edit on nlwiki, because their system really does suck that much. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   We're not here to be nice, to be all-inclusive in the sense of swaying people to consensus over time. That worked years ago, I'm sure, but it's not needed. If someone won't turn around, they won't turn around. We're not here to be masters of socially convincing others of ideas of merit, we're here to improve Wikipedia. Time limits are fine--we have them on AFD, DRV, and RFA. If a consensus isn't obvious by a reasonable time, then it's a safe bet the idea isn't worth implementing. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Prescriptive policy is very hard to enforce on a large sprawling wiki. The group may want to stick to describing best practice, as is the current known best practice.

   Rigid adherence to historic practice is futile. Just as consensus can change, our methods to determine consensus can change too. Nothing is immutable on Wikipedia except legal concerns. We can dump anything and everything else if a better solution presents itself, from a line of article text, to policy determination, to the entire WMF board and WMF employees.

   Now that is irony. In effect you're basically saying here that "Rigid adherence to the historic practice of non-rigidity is futile, therefore we must introduce a new practice of absolute rigidity!". Maybe you'd like to reword? :-)

   Nope, no reword. Theres nothing rigid about Kiril's proposal. Is it rigid to ask people to comment within a couple of lines, rather than aimless, rambling sprawling archives of text that only the hard core policy wonks will follow? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

7. Such commissions have been suggested before, once on enwiki, and once on nlwiki as far as I can recall. Both times the commissions failed to work, the consensus system outpaced them rather strongly at the time.

   Because something may not work is not a reason to not try it. Wikipedia:Wikirules proposal looks totally different than Kiril's proposal; it would have been an appointed ruling class to decide rules. Kiril's proposal is to empower the community in a more organized fashion. Who would have thought an encyclopedia anyone can edit would work?

   Like I said, I love the principle. Empowering people is a fine concept. But at the same time, I think the proposals put forward so far look like they will do the opposite, some even resemble the mindset behind nupedia. That's why I posed some basic requirements. If they are met, then there's a good chance that the principle would actually end up being put into practice. :-) In the mean time, I want to continue some of my own activities which do tend to empower people over time, as I have observed.

   I experienced that people would never have thought wikipedia would work. But it did. It worked because people had thought very carefully about governance over time, and implemented many procedures to make it work. Unfortunately, over time, a lot of those people have left, and now we sometimes have people actually *on* wikipedia, who still don't believe that wikipedia can work ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)One of my modest proposals is to teach them how to make it work for them. But that's a story for another day.

   It's actually the opposite of nupedia, because Kiril's model and proposal would make it so that the "policy wonks" are of no more value to the policy determination process than any other user, and because it encourages more people with a stake in Wikipedia to weigh in with their thoughts. If you ask a random good user with 300 article edits, 200 talk edits, and another 200 edits across various project pages to weigh in on a policy proposal, what if the guy doesn't have the time to sit and respond in depth for days, weeks, or months on the change? He has a stake in it--should his voice have less value in the ultimate decision because he doesn't have time to sit and work the policy talk page until everyone is swayed? Maybe he just really likes or dislikes the change, and says why. That one edit/post should count just as much as the lady with time to post 200 times to that policy page in a month and to reply to everything, because that lady spends 550 of the 700 posts she has time for in a month on policy pages. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses in-line. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Hiding

How does putting all policy decision in one central place, with everything done in public, dragged out of the backrooms of policy talk pages with a method of:

1. I propose a change on the central page/cross notify to the policy talk page
2. The PolCom members weigh in with their take/views on it
3. The community weighs in with their take/views on it on the proposal page
4. A 1-4 week poll on the proposal commences
5. That poll decides the fate of the proposal
6. PolCom simply guards against random changes to policy that have no support and advises on policy interpretation

How does that exclude anyone... or make some of us less equal in voice? ALL our voices should be 1:1. None of us should be 2:1, or 3:1, or 5:1, as some policy wonks are now by ownership of their pet pages. Is your major problem the so-called steering committee? What if it was:

1. I propose a change on the central page/cross notify to the policy talk page
2. The community weighs in with their take/views on it on the proposal page
3. A 1-4 week poll on the proposal commences
4. That poll decides the fate of the proposal

Would this be less offensive if we left off the "PolCom" bit? What I want myself is to have everyone have an equal voice in policy decision, in a way that does not reward or empower those with time to spend hours and hours daily on guarding policy pages. Kim? Thoughts? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Um, okay. Let's look at your bottom suggestion. Let's try and take this for a test run. You propose that everyone start their comment on a talk page with hello. We then have to go through stages 2 3 and 4? If not, why not?
• Also, as it stands we already have 1 and 2, why do we need 3 and 4 mandated? They are there if we want to use them, and we have used them in the past.

• My major problem with your proposal is that it will go bad, because power corrupts. And I don't care how you dress it up, anything which involves electing people involves power. Now god knows I like polls, but I don't like polls being used to mean anything. I like polls being used to force people into doing anything but listening to the poll, because if the poll is going to return a unanimous decision we wouldn't need the poll in the first place because there wouldn't be any contention. So therefore we will only have polls when the community is divided, and they then only divide the community even more. See above for my thoughts on how to read the results of a poll. Some of the best disputes on Wikipedia are how to determine the results of a poll. Hiding T 20:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're against the model with a committee. So lets cover the rest in the bottom version.

Kiril's model: You want to make a substantive change to WP:N. You post the change proposal and reasoning on something like WP:Proposed policy changes. Post a notification back to the PPC page on the WP:N talk page. Everyone weighs in for a week lets say, *ON* the proposal page in the central location. People just need to bookmark that one page then to see all pending proposals. After a solid week's discussion, we fire up a poll. A policy change shouldn't happen unless there is obvious significant support for it--thats the point of them being commonly accepted by the masses. Most policy change attempts fail. It will be the same under this model--but it will allow a lot more people to weigh in with their thoughts and views, without having to sit and debate for weeks on end (unless if they want to).

Let's take it the other way: today's model. You post your change to WP:N's talk page for discussion. People watching WP:N weigh in. Lets say I notice your proposal, and say "I don't like this for xyz, don't do it" or "I like this for abc, please do this". Let's say I never pop back into that page for 2-3 months. Should my statement and voice in that policy change have value and affect consensus, without my having to sit there and defend my views for days, weeks, or months?

On polls... In regards to steps 3/4, the poll, what is a fairer way to ensure that all users in good standing have an exactly equal voice, on a 1:1 basis, as they are entitled to in the operations of our website? Should some users have a 2:1 weight, or 3:1? Sure--based on their opinions, but just like on RFA, people's opinions sway each other. But we're a volunteer project; we spend time as we will. For my voice to be counted I shouldn't have to watchlist every comment I make to fend off all challenges. That's absurd. If I pop onto an AFD and say xyz, my statement has weight, and should be counted in consensus, regardless if I never return to it. This Kiril model defends the average user's voice against policy rats and policy wonks. It makes all users the same.

Kiril's model also, like AFD and DRV, would allow for returns to old discussions, to rerun them--just as AFD and DRV. Consensus can change over time, but like a real policy talk page, are you going to try to ram through a change monthly for a year till you get your way? Of course not. This focused method would make it easier to track perennial requests that have no merit. Polls can be rerun at any time. If you abuse that, you'll just be ignored, though, without presenting a compelling argument...

So... I have maybe 10-15 hours a week to spend here, for example. On a good week 10+ of that is article work. Research, writing. Two FAs and two GAs down, and another 2-3 FAs hopefully in the pipeline. Should I have to spend 10+ of my 15 hours per week on policy matters for my voice to have the same value as those who already spend that much time on policy pages? Which of those two models is more fair to people that want to build the encyclopedia, and not build policy? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed a whole chunk of my post. You also completely misunderstand today's model. First off, I want to change policy, I just change it. Or, I only have ten to 15 hours to edit, so I don;t care what policy looks like. I'll just edit the way I always do and let the policy wonks edit it, because they're so busy doing that they'll never come into article space and actually find out it doesn't get implemented, we're too busy building the encyclopedia through consensus editing. The best model for creating the encyclopedia is to create it. And then describe how we do it. Why on earth would you want to do anything different? How do you know what works until you've tried it? Sorry Lawrence, I don't see the nut you're trying to crack. Maybe we need a specific example. Hiding T 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A specific example would be Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Straw_poll, which has mega-impact. Something like that would be perfectly tailored to Kiril's model, as it would guarantee the widest exposure for something like this. Unless people happen to watch the BLP page, or caught it on the Village Pump (not enough watch this, and you have to find it before it scrolls), or BLPN, they may not know about it. Every active user that edits has a stake in that discussion, and all should have have the same change to weigh in without having to watch the few places it was hawked. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that poll is a staggeringly bad example of the problem. Because I missed the poll and tried to amend policy, and my changes were reverted because the poll is ongoing and now you can't change the policy until the poll is done, which is stupid. (Curiously, I've been reverted by an arbitrator on those changes, which makes you wonder whether arb-com is divorced from policy making. Would you revert an arbitrator?) But the poll is now mentioned in the deletion process, guidance on deletion for admins and at WP:AN, so it broadens the scope further. And your assumption seems to be that the poll won't solve anything. Otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an example. And if all you are concerned about is coverage, stick a link on the top of the watchlist. The problem with the BLP solution is people keep having separate straw polls on all the separate solutions in different places on different days of the week. The consensus seems to be moving towards semi-protecting BLP's, but fairly slowly. All that said, if this really was a mega-issue, the board would already have mandated the answer. And we'd still be in the same logjam now as we would be if Kiril's proposal was implemented. How would that have solved this issue? Hiding T 21:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have an example to share - WP:SPOILER. Normal people were busy writing encyclopedia, and some of them included spoiler warnings. The WP:SPOILER page contained description of the practice. But then policy wonks chimed in, and removed all the spoiler warnings (under false pretenses), then changed the WP:SPOILER to describe what they did - ie. Wikipedia doesn't contain spoiler warnings. They used circular argument - there are no spoiler warnings, so the policy documents the current practice. If someone tried to add SWs back, they were reverted or even banned on the grounds that they contradict to the policy. The spoiler warning template was later removed in TfD which ignored majority. Your view is unfortunately very idealistic, and we don't live in a vacuum. From time to time policy wonks notice the article space and start doing their thing (usually deleting stuff). You may consider WP:SPOILER as a minor thing, and I generally agree, but for me, it was an eye-opener regarding Wikipedia politics. Samohyl Jan (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers are one of those issues no debate would solve. You either have them or you don't, it's binary and one side loses no matter what. It appears as though consensus is with removal though, since consensus can change and it appears it hasn't yet. Maybe you should restart debate at the village pump or amend WP:SPOILER, see if consensus has changed. Hiding T 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't so binary as it seems - I gave two compromise proposals which would be in between, but they were rejected by the anti-spoiler people (and since they had more power, there was no point fighting for that). It's nice that you say that consensus can change, the problem is, there was no consensus for their removal in the first place. I don't want to bitch about it here though, I am just giving an example where what you described above ("just edit the mainspace and then document the practice") didn't work. If you actually admit that there are issues in which one side loses no matter what, then voting would guarantee that the minority would lose in such cases, thus making less people unhappy. That's why I want voting to decide things (I wouldn't mind to lose in SW debate by voting, but I do really object to lose by underhanded tactics). Samohyl Jan (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's walk through that and see where we end up. So for starters, what makes you say there was no consensus? Weren't the spoiler warnings reverted back in, for instance? *listening carefully* --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to go through that, it's irrelevant to this discussion, and it's beating of a dead horse now. And I already explained above that those who tried put SWs back to the articles were reverted (and pointed to the recently changed policy) or even banned. Mostly these people were maintainers of the articles, and were unaware what's going on on WP:SPOILER. Just read the discussion from June and July 2007 on WP:SPOILER (the RfC, for example, where they closed the polls as soon as they started to be unfavorable to their cause), and you will understand that you cannot call that consensus. Samohyl Jan (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you brought it up now, and if you're right that something went off the rails there, it bears investigating, right? (if prefer to take it elsewhere, leaving a message on my talk page works fine too.) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• In reference to the KL's proposal as I "think" Hiding understands it, I pretty much agree with Hiding's assessment of potential shortcomings. - jc37 05:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to User

Personally, I think it would be interesting to scrap all policy but the core 5 ones and see how that works now in large scale. IAR all the time, as it were. I bet things won't degrade too much. Too much energy is spent on policy squabbling anyway. JeanLatore (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you consider to be the "core 5 ones"? - jc37 05:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably means WP:5P. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Exactly what I was thinking. Only I would have called it a "Modest Proposal" or something like that...Ben Standeven (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you know the history of WP:5P, you might know that historically, this has had my support as well. A lot of policy that is actually important is enforced by the mediawiki engine, and/or could be programmed in.

One could alternately go further yet, or hold back just a little bit.

<scratches head> I realize we're several years onward now, but still, I wonder to what extent that's still a viable plan? I'm somewhat skeptical, but it would be cool if it was still possible, especially if we can get more buy-in than previously. But how to proceed on that?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I have the feeling that the current system might be subject to the Abilene paradox

The trifecta nearly works. Oddly, the simplified rule-set looks too complicated. The single rule-set is possible, of course: do your best to improve the encyclopedia. I'm not sure if we have passed that point already though. Hiding T 09:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What was the catalyst for this?

What was the catlyst for this? Is it the current BLP "discussion"? - jc37 05:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's a variety of factors, one of which I see as ArbCom's frustation with cases where policies collide. The tension builds and conflicts between editors are almost never resolved satisfactorily. Nifboy (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If arb-com actually looked at the behavioural patterns of editors involved in that dispute it might not have festered so long. There was one sock puppet involved in that case and some very tendentious editors. The flaws in that case are the flaws this will not solve, because the community as a whole is rather perfectly split between inclusionists and deletionists. The other flaw in that case is that there are editors who don't wish to treat problems case by case and there are editors who feel that no precedent is made after a large number of articles have been treated case by case. There is also no quarter given on either side, which would see us retain anything which resembles an encyclopedic article regardless of being sourced mainly from primary sources. But that's a separate issue. What I would like to know is how this proposal will solve issues where the community is finely balanced in two camps. Either policy-com is the final arbiter, in which case power has been removed from editors and invested in a committee, with all the flaws that entails, or we have the status quo, so the policy com is redundant. The problem isn't with the system, it's with the ability to sell changes to the community, and with our methods of dealing with editors who don't seek to build consensus. Arbitration on Wikipedia currently doesn't do what it is supposed to do. Hiding T 10:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the collision of policies, including that decision (no offense to the ArbCom), is completely a false dilemma. Taking the example linked above, there is only a contradiction if each page is considered in a vacuum, which is a silly way to consider things. Verifiability, no original research, reliable sourcing, notability and "what Wikipedia is not" all contradict that version of the "Wiki is not paper" principle is a similarly superficial manner. Can we create topics with hundreds of subarticles and other related content? Sure. The wiki is not paper. Does that mean we disregard our basic content and inclusion principles? Of course not. There is no inherent contradiction except when considering the individual principles of themselves with a rather literalist reading. Vassyana (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A related essay

The essay User:SteveBaker/Consensus Essay may be of interest in relation to this proposal. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, interesting essay. He came to the conclusion that voting and some rules are necessary, even through the usual denial of Wikipedians that it is not. His proposal has problems, however - there is no time limit for the voting, meaning anyone can stop it at a convenient time, and also there is no way someone interest in the voted proposal could know about it (no central page); also, his supermajority requirement means that 1/3 minority can hold status quo against 2/3 majority, but that's a minor bug in my eyes. Anyway, I always wonder why so many Wikipedians believe voting and hard rules are such a bad thing. As the above essay have proven formally, there is no way around voting. And I have always interpreted "ignore all rules" not as cowboy-era "you can do whatever you please" but more like "if you are new here, you don't have to read 20 thick books on various policies, and in general, if you occasionally make a mistake, that's fine". Samohyl Jan (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(I've always felt that the correct interpretation of "Ignore all rules" is "Recognise that there are exceptions to every rule - and that in the end, making a better encyclopedia is sufficient justification for claiming that exception"). SteveBaker (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Duncan for posting my essay - and for reminding me that I wrote it(!). The main thrust of my essay was to convince people that the system is broken. I agree with Samohyl Jan that my concluding proposals are probably not of great merit. What is important is that we can agree that there are situations where consensus breaks down. Having done that we will be better equipped to address a proper solution.

From what I've read above, quite a few people are still in denial and believe that consensus can work. I'd like to hear what they have to say about my essay - what DO you do if consensus cannot be reached on a matter that has no default position or in a situation where everyone agrees that action is essential but the precise form of action cannot be agreed upon?

I maintain that consensus still works for deciding what words go into an article - because we can always compromise ("Say both" or "Say neither"). It works moderately well for small groups of editors who are on friendly terms because people will go out of their way to back down when they see they are obstacles to consensus. It's also OK for things like WP:FAQ and WP:AfD where the 'default' action in the event of 'no consensus' is clear (don't promote the article, don't delete the article). Where consensus fails is when there are a large number of people involved - or where there is no good agreement on what "no consensus" means.

Sadly, I think this effort to introduce voting is doomed because we require consensus in order to be able to replace consensus - and this debate is rapidly becoming a poster-child for questions-that-consensus-will-never-answer.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me, from the arguments against voting here, most Wikipedians who despise voting do so because they have bad experience with it. Unfortunately, this bad experience is due to lack of hard and respected rules. If people do not respect rules of voting and the result of voting, then the act of voting is completely meaningless. It is important to realize that voting and hard rules for voting go hand in hand. Anyway, I am still quite optimistic - there are many people who are starting to notice the problem, and by debating it, they can find a good solution. Samohyl Jan (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it can work, the Weimar republic managed to abolish not just consensus, but even voting altogether (might be preferred by those who would prefer the thing run by arbcom fiat, for instance). You'll need a time machine to go live there though.

Of course, the Weimar republic was the extreme example of the case. The more general relevance is that a participatory system *can* be downgraded, if sufficient support can be gained from people who lack respect for the system or knowledge of how to use it. The lesson learned is that those familiar with the system should put up the most strenuous resistance in the short term, and work hard to educate people to learn how to use it in the long term.

This particular page should have been a wake up call, but too many people simply have never looked at it still, even today. That's a weak spot in participatory systems, people can get too complacent, if you're not careful. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised by SteveBaker's conclusion that "many" people are in denial. As far as I can see, only Kim Bruning is defending the current system. Given the monumental filibuster he is pulling off here, he obviously finds it very congenial. Not surprising as he is demonstrably one of the few people with sufficient clout (i.e. admin buttons plus reputation) to be able to make changes to policy pages; edits to policy by non-admins are rapidly reverted and result in blocking if they try to press the point (yes, it happened to me).

FWIW, I strongly support the model suggested by Kirill Lokshin. Wikipedia changes, and new policy is required from time to time. Right now we have no way to produce it. Example: WP:Flagged revisions is coming. It has many switches that have to be set. The community will never decide on how to do this, but a formal policy assembly, making decisions by simple majority voting, could. Otherwise we effectively leave the decision to the developers, who certainly don't want to make them. PaddyLeahy (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Kim doesn't, I believe, have admin buttons. I do, and will throw my lot in with Kim's. I believe polls have a part to play, but only when consensus dictates. Consensus is the best decision making process we have. A lot of the issues people have with the consensus model is that they imagine the issue has to be settled within their preferred timescale. Anyone who gets blocked by an admin for editing policy needs to kick up a big stink. All the way to arbitration, if need be, and let arbitration do what it is supposed to, which is defend the decision making process and settle disputes unequivocally. Yes there are flaws in the process. Kim's doing a very good job at fixing those on the ground as and when he can. Further on, maybe the community needs to rethink its criteria for electing arbitrators. Too often they're picked on popularity rather than insight or suitability. Which is why I think pol-com is a staggeringly bad idea. Hiding T 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I ain't got no admin flag, and I'm not sure how many people still know me at all. People come and go at a startling rate. I figure that's part of the problem. People don't ever get a chance to learn how to do this stuff properly.

You got blocked for attempting to edit a policy page? Okay, let's go take a look there. Can you link?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, let's not get diverted talking about ancient history. Suffice to say the block was technically legit but IMHO as a newbie (then) I'd have got off with a warning if it hadn't been a dispute over policy with a bunch of admins. In the context of the current debate, it's worth saying that in the wake of that dispute I was sufficiently impressed by the disconnect between the gobledegook about consensus and the actual way that policy is made and enforced on wikipedia that I drastically cut down on editing, while other editors quit completely. This is yet another reason the current system is "broken": the lack of process clarity greatly increases the stress about even relatively trivial disputes, leading to the losing side feeling they have been steamrollered by powerful cliques. If there was a pol-com, users could clearly see who was deciding what, accept the decision pro tem and if they really cared, vote accordingly (or stand themselves) at the next election.

It's encouraging to hear Kim is not an admin; as for the other thing, in this context the reputation that counts is with the admins who take an interest in policy, and I think you are pretty well known to and trusted by that group. PaddyLeahy (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed regarding Kim's reputation being sufficient to earn respect, admin or not. In response to Hiding, part of the problem might be those cases when people are wanting policy change "on their timescale" because of a perceived difficulty which could blow up in everyone's face if it isn't addressed comparatively rapidly. In all honesty, I have no clear idea how to address that in a way satisfactory to all. The best option I can personally think of, and it may not be a particularly good one, would be to maybe draft a guideline regarding the matter which would address the perceived current difficulty effectively but possibly only that perceived current difficulty, and see if it can get consensus as a guideline. If it can, then the proximate problem will likely be addressed, while at the same time hopefully not being an undue burden on freedom. Also, it would allow for further "refinement" of language, terms, and the like to remain ongoing.

As someone who supports the model proposed, my biggest personal reservation would be in regards to those individuals who wrongly expect the group to function in the way we are used to legislatures doing, like passing new laws every day or so. That would definitely not be what I and I think others are contemplating. I'm thinking less of a legislative model than a crisis management model, whether the term "crisis management" itself is applicable or not. The members of the committee should be selected on the basis of familiarity with extant policies and guidelines, a working knowledge of optimal phrasing for new proposals, and such so that, effectively, if it is perceived as being good or necessary to have a new policy or guideline proposed, the members of the committee can be those individuals who can produce a functional draft of the policy or guideline quickly and effectively, know between them enough about wikipedia to be able to draft something without glaring loopholes in it, and be able to adequately make any changes resulting from reasonable possible complications noted by others later. By settting it up in that way, it would allow the matter to come to broader community discussion more quickly and possibly lead to a quicker reasonable resolution of the proposal. If it is drafted and still remains only a proposal, with no changes to policy or guidelines resulting, fine. But we would want to make sure that no one is expecting the group to pass 100 new policies every term or anything similar to a legislature. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think a legislature is too bad a model, if not taken too literally. A pol-com would be fundamentally limited by the time volunteers can contribute, so 1 new policy per week (let alone day) seems highly unlikely. But once created, it would be up to pol-com to decide how to run itself, since it could presumably change any policies defining its role (unless WMF were to impose a constitution, which would be a Good Thing but seems unlikely). Pol-com would be one of wikipedia's most powerful bodies (in some ways more powerful than the WMF trustees, given that they can't or won't interfere on content). Hence pol-com members must be, and be seen to be, representative of the community. That implies

1. a group big enough to reflect the major strands of opinion in the community (minimum 20, 50 would be better but might be hard to recruit);
2. democratic elections with careful control of voter eligibility (like the WMF board) to prevent gaming the system;
3. moderately long terms (say 2 years) because such elections are expensive of volunteer time and effort.

I don't see drafting as a major problem. The problem is agreeing (i) that the process of drafting is finished and (ii) whether or not to implement the draft. Nothing stops pol-com from inviting non-members (e.g. with legal training) to draft policies, from voting on policies suggested by non-members (although it can also ignore them), or running votes or !votes within the general community (although it doesn't have to abide by the results). As a democratic body, members wanting re-election would have to listen to the community. All of these are typical of legislatures, and militate against pol-com becoming too autocratic (though of course the whole point here is to be a bit more top-down than the current system, so as to be able to make actual decisions). John Carter's carefully "selected" (by whom?) crisis-management committee sounds more like an executive than a legislature, and despite the best of intentions at the start that would likely develop rapidly into a very top-down system. I would agree that, unlike a legislature, pol-com would be wise to act only where a significant dispute blows up, and let the current system continue for minor changes (e.g. most MOS issues) where it generally works OK. PaddyLeahy (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I never said "carefully", and I was more or less considering that they would be eligible for election like your proposal above, although possibly with some input either at the beginning or end from the Foundation, Jimbo, or whatever, if they would request that, much like ArbCom so far as I can tell. I can't help but thinking that the two ideas are basically similar, even if the terms to describe them aren't identical. I would agree that it would probably function best like the original US Congress was supposed to, passing new issues only when required. But, considering that the legislatures we now have have their candidates run on the basis of the bills they personally proposed or passed, I think that using the word "legislature" will carrying some meanings to at least several people which might confuse at least a few of the issues regarding the subject. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact I notice that I ended up just repeating the original proposal... I agree it is mainly a matter of emphasis. WMF vetting pre- or post-election might backfire though: it would be better for WMF to specify a mechanism for dispute resolution if WMF and pol-com end up arguing (e.g., WMF power to call fresh pol-com elections).

Presumably candidates only run on bills that were popular: is that a bad thing? Would it be bad if pol-com passed many policies that were popular with the community? More likely, editors will prefer to work with a fairly stable set of rules, but these things have their own dynamic, which is hard to predict or tie down at the start. PaddyLeahy (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been said above that the current ArbCom members sometimes get elected for popularity, not necessarily clarity of thought. On that basis, making it easier for people to be swayed by "popularity" is probably not a particularly good thing. Also, I think the "vetting" process would involve letting someone know your real name, so they can check to see if you're a lunatic mass murderer who'll never leave jail for the rest of his life. In a lot of cases I don't think that's the sort of thing we spread around about ourselves too often. But the Foundation, who doesn't have to say what they know to us, or Jimbo, would be in a position to ensure that we don't have Hannibal Lecter determining content here. Somehow, I think his opinions on "food" content might be, well, problematic. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the influence of pol-com and the real-life monetary value of wikipedia, I would be in favour of pol-com candidates being required to reveal their real name and age to the electorate, and have this verified by the election board. Furthermore, off-wiki activities should be regarded as completely legitimate topics for discussion about candidates. Then all the vetting is done by the electorate, rather than by some council of mullahs. In democracies, candidates get elected because they are popular. One of the known drawbacks. But it's too late to go back to benevolent dictatorship (come to think of it, Jimbo was popular too...)

...and then I read your actual proposal at Wikipedia:Policy Committee version 1. This seems pretty much the opposite of what I thought Kirill was proposing. More comments here. PaddyLeahy (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy and guideline review proposal

• User:Jc37/Sandbox/Policy and guideline review

Ok, I wrote up the proposal. (For those who haven't read the discussions above, its format is somewhat of a cross between DRV and Arbcomm.) Thoughts/ideas/issues/concerns/etc are welcome. - jc37 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. One obvious matter that doesn't seem to be very explicit: would the determination of policy/guideline/essay/junk made by the committee be binding, or would it be merely an opinion? (If it's the latter, we'd be back to the same problem of having no usable method for causing the community to come to a decision.) Kirill ^(prof) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a good start to me. Someone left some helpful comments on the proposal's talk page and I added a few suggestions of my own that I hope are also helpful. Cla68 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've responded there. - jc37 06:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Decision methods

(If it's the latter, we'd be back to the same problem of having no usable method for causing the community to come to a decision.) Kirill ^(prof) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally would much rather see some form of direct democracy, or at least open door for direct democracy, so I wouldn't quite like if some committee (albeit elected) would ultimately decide everything (but it's a good start anyway). I think your argument is false - there needs to be method to elect the committee anyway, so there obviously is a method for community to come to a decision. I would like to ask you - if you oppose direct democracy (I am not sure) - would it be acceptable for you if the committee decides differently than what the majority of eligible voters (in the committee election) wishes? Samohyl Jan (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was contrasting the proposal not with a hypothetical system of direct democracy—I have no fundamental objections to that—but rather with the current system, in which nobody votes, and instead we sit debating things ad infinitum (or as long as the most persistent members of the opposition want to, in any case).

My main practical concern with fully direct voting is that we don't really have a closed voter set, since people can join or leave at any point. This means that while a referendum-style vote is good for settling a single question, it's difficult to use for formulating a "most popular" variant of a proposal, since there's no way of gauging voter feeling continuously. (Compare a committee version, which lends itself more to a classical consensus-like "work on it until we have a version which passes" approach.) This isn't to say that direct voting would be impossible; but I think we'd need to develop some system for it that would be easier to use. Perhaps some sort of dual approach, with a committee approving a preliminary policy that would then be ratified by direct vote (similar to how, say, U.S. constitutional amendments work)? Kirill ^(prof) 04:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answer, nice to hear that. I agree that almost any system is better than the current one. I would agree with a ratification system, and some other people proposed system like that in the above discussion too. As long as the committee would be willing to take input from the community, and community could overrule it (by sufficient enough votes), I will be fine with it. Samohyl Jan (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That can be a telling point. Another possibility, which I have seen arise in other discussions, is that for whatever reason a person contests a given opinion, disappears for several weeks, during which everybody else tries to address that editor's concerns as well as they can, without benefit of that contesting person's input, effectively resolve the situation to there own consensus, only to have the original contender re-appear thereafter, say his concerns have not been met and there is no consensus, and start the discussion all over again. The process can repeat indefinitely. While I would acknowledge that there are specific situations when such would be unavoidable, and would hope that a model like those proposed would take them into account, such possible attempts to game the system would be particularly disruptive regarding policy debates. Creating some sort of system which would make such events less likely to occur would be to I think everybody's advantage. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Foundation-l Posting by Eric Moller

A couple of weeks ago, Eric Moller (deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation) made an interesting post to the Foundation-l mailing list, responding to the fuss about the recent board resolutions. It reads in part:

The Board has given the community a clear "go" signal to explore models of self-governance and decision making processes, be they councils, direct voting, committees, or other processes which work. This allows for the rapid, parallel evolution of mechanisms of self-governance and a "survival of the fittest" decision-making processes. That's a very real alternative to a top-down decision to explore one particular model (Volunteer Council) and, arguably, preferable.

Actually, this sounds to me like a definition of civil war but at any rate can be taken as support for the current discussion. With this in mind I've made Kirill Lokshin's original suggestion on the project page here (i.e. the "Wikipedia Assembly" model) a bit more specific. I find myself in total agreement with all the points Kirill has made on this and related pages, and unsympathetic with the various attempts to bend the idea away from being a legislative body. Whether Kirill (or anybody else) agrees with the specific changes I've made I don't know...any reactions? PaddyLeahy (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with them; the idea of allowing the current model to continue except where specified otherwise, in particular, seems like a very good approach, and would help avoid turning the body into a bureaucratic bottleneck for uncontroversial matters.

More broadly, I would tend to favor more traditionally legislative models over less legislative ones; but I view the establishment of any usable model of policy modification to be more important than the particular type, and so have no problems with some of the non-legislative approaches if the community is more comfortable with those. Kirill ^(prof) 13:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As I think you probably know by now, I strongly oppose the creation of a "legislative assembly".

From everything I've read of your (KL's) concerns so far, all you seem to be after is "someone" to act in the position of an admin closing a discussion. As noted at consensus (and particularly at Consensus decision-making), a facilitator is needed to "close" as discussion.

I don't have large problems with that, presuming that such a person or persons is directly responsible to the community. (For example, the position shouldn't be "for life, and should be subject to some sort of review itself.)

So let's attempt to resolve your concerns without throwing the baby out with the bathwater : ) - jc37 14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the two are all that distinct. Consider, for example, the practice of having multiple bureaucrats consult before closing a contentious RFA. I'd think a similar approach would be useful here, given the length and acrimony of some policy debates—we wouldn't really want to have things overly dependent on which individual editor closes the discussion—so we'd basically wind up with a group of people ("PolCom", for lack of a better term at the moment) that would get together and determine what the outcome of a policy debate was. But there is very little practical difference between this model (community debates, PolCom decides outcome) and the legislative one (community debates, Assembly decides outcome). PolCom would, in theory, only be enunciating existing consensus rather than "deciding" policy, true—but given a sufficiently large and equal-sided debate, it's quite possible to pull either outcome from it, so PolCom would in essence still be making the final decision.

So I don't think there's as much difference between the two approaches as might seem at first glance, particularly if PolCom makes its own internal determinations by some method resembling voting. In practical terms, either one is suitable, in my opinion, for making sure that policy debates actually have some conclusion, and are not controlled by the loudest and most obstinate editors; the differences between the two are mostly in the details of implementation, which are entirely open to debate in any case. Kirill ^(prof) 00:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah. That puts a whole new shape on it all. I'm actually getting rather fed up of the board's method of communicating with the individual wiki's, and their methods of getting what they want. POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. ~ Ambrose Bierce in The Devil's Dictionary. Hiding T 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Natural consensus, polls, and no committees, please

Discuss→viewpoints summary→viewpoints poll→discuss→consensus→modify.

I've tried writing several Council, Community Council, Community Committee, and Steering Committee proposals on my internal wiki, and for each one I've always felt a sense that they are not the right thing to do — they're either too bureaucratic, too complicated, too community-resource-intensive, or too-(something bad).

The core of the issue at hand seems to be that some editors are fed up with other users holding sole claim to certain policy pages. I ask: does this alone warrant the formation of a policy committee or policy review system, which would suck huge amounts of community resources? No. Take a look at this page, which is nearly 600 kilobytes long as I write; given 30 kilobyte articles, 20 (very substantial) articles could have been written with all of the discussion that's been generated here. Policy is apparently a "big issue", and I am not prepared to see it becoming the focus of the community.

Let's look at the big picture before painting even a small part of it.

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dedicated to bringing the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet, free, in their own language.
• We, as a community, are here to further this goal, not obstruct it.
• As a community existing to develop an encyclopedia, we require certain rules to dictate what content is acceptable in the encyclopedia and what behaviour is appropriate in the community. Rules are needed in order to ensure quality of content and productivity of community; without clear rules, editors may be treated unfairly or inappropriately.
• If any of these rules prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, we are obliged to overlook them for this purpose and this purpose only.
• For the most part, these rules, hereafter referred to as policies, should document existing cultural practices of the project. However, some policies are not debatable:
  • content inserted in articles must be presented in a neutral and verifiable manner, and must be notable (in other words, not original research);
  • behaviour in the community must be collaborative and cooperative.
• Beyond these principles, requirements for encyclopedic content and community behaviour are open to constructive community discussion, but no more than discussion; in particular, policies, guidelines, procedures, systems, and groups may only be formed for the purpose of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia or the community (and I do not believe that either a policy committee or a policy review system would improve or maintain either the encyclopedia or the community).
• To extent, policies define (whether for good or for bad) practices that editors are expected to follow unless they have a very good reason to do otherwise. Thus, policy pages are important, and they must be controlled by the community, not by selfish individuals or cults.

Which, after a view of the big picture, brings us to the crux of the issue being discussed on this page: how do we, as a community, take control of policies (and guidelines, procedures, systems, and groups) out of the hands of selfish individuals and cults and into the hands of the community?

I would argue that we should do so in two ways:

• by blocking, aggressively, anybody who carries out modifications in a manner that deliberately goes against community consensus — in order to avoid accusations of administrator abuse, considerations of such blocks should be supported by a minimum of two (preferably more) neutral, uninvolved administrators;
• by encouraging — no, enforcing — a discuss→viewpoints summary→viewpoints poll→discuss→consensus→modify cycle for significant changes (where viewpoints summary→viewpoints poll→discuss is repeated as many times as necessary; it may not even be needed at all) (carrying out a regular, but non-binding, 24-hour poll ensures that no one can misinterpret consensus) (see the top of this post for a simple diagram demonstrating this process).

If a council, committee, or system was started sometime in the future, I would insist that it serve the purpose of encouraging, assisting, and enabling community members to contribute constructively to the project, either in the form of a pure Steering Committee or Content Committee which had a very minimal overhead and got on with building the encyclopedia after doing its job:

• a Steering Committee (my preferable option) would ultimately aim to steer the project toward its goal through resolving disputes (including policy disputes), advocating and representing between the community and the general public, actively developing the encyclopedia, and encouraging others to do all of these things;
• a Content Committee would act as a last resort, making binding resolutions to articles and other pages in accordance with acceptable, established community practices; this Committee could, in a binding fashion, resolve neutrality/verifiability/original-research issues in articles and consensus issues in other pages (such as policy pages, etc.).

Ideally, I would most definitely prefer that a new council, committee, or system was not started (although, of course, I reserve the right to change my position on this view); once we start thinking about the huge resource-sucking consequences, it becomes apparent (at least to me) that such a group would almost inevitably cause less editors to improve and maintain the encyclopedia and community. If some group or procedure was started, it would have to be very carefully planned and laid out to ensure maximum effectiveness and efficiency, minimal interference with other aspects of the community and encyclopedia, and recognisable bonus to the project.

Best and friendly regards — and make sure you remember what we're here for, folks. — Thomas H. Larsen 01:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, how large was your wiki? There is a consensus among people who want this change that consensus system works very well for small communities, and only if people start to become largely unknown, it becomes a practical problem. Samohyl Jan (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of polls, we've been using page editing as our primary method of testing consensus. In some ways that seems almost anarchistic, but at the end of the day when you examine it carefully, it actually scales better than polling, much of the time. (There are exceptional circumstances when you are forced into a poll).

FORCING the discuss then modify cycle has been very thoroughly checked out using flowcharts, and has also had some testing in the field. Unlike the Bold first model, it allows people to filibuster indefinitely. People who mistakenly (or deliberately but naively) tried to push this model have suffered a lot of embarrassment on en.wikipedia. If anything can help to prevent the ills people complain about, it is to ensure that people are permitted to be bold first. It is not surprising that that particular guideline has endured so long.

Samohyl Jan makes the traditional scaling argument, but I'd like to point out that we've already discussed numbers and scaling, and have found that the wiki itself scales very well, and thus that scaling issues have not been a major problem throughout most of the history of the wiki. There is a caveat there. A naive process designer is more likely to cause a scaling issue in his/her design today than they were 8 years ago, for 2 reasons. The first is that yes the wiki has grown, so you need to be extra careful. The second is that less people are aware of how the wiki works (so they are more likely to be naive). --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki way, much less Wikipedia way, is community self-governance

I completely agree with the sentiment of "natural consensus, polls, and no committees" expressed earlier.

Self-organizing and self-governing committees have always been the Wiki way. Governance by a select committee is the very antithesis of the Wiki way. For any Wiki the superordinate goal, that is the group goal, as opposed to an individual goal, is to continue the Wiki's existence. Whereas a committees' superordinate goals are often at odds with both the Wiki's and those of the community. Not to mention committee's adding another layer of bureaucracy and tending to attract those pathologically drawn to power.

I'll take a self-governed community over one controlled by committee every time, despite the inevitable, but healthy, difficulties. Barring any new ideas more compelling than what I've seen here already, I'll be opposing this effort if it comes down to a vote, er, comments. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FeloniousMonk. The relative inability of the community (and ArbCom) to solve the problems being addressed is due to an ossifying (or complication) of the consensus model, by-the-letter interpretations of the rules and excessive bureaucratic sprawl. More of the same is not a real solution and will only serve to exacerbate the problems and delays futher. Vassyana (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just do it?

A proposal has been made that would follow the wiki way and at the same time create a centralization of advice, if used in that way. This was WP:PRX, which was quickly marked Rejected, accompanied by serious attempts to delete, erase, and possibly salt it, based on a radical misunderstanding of the proposal, apparently. The proposal was not to establish voting, but to establish -- merely allow, not require -- users to name a trusted "proxy." The name may have been misleading because of various uses which proxies can be put to, including voting, but no actual use was part of the proposal, which was only about the technology.

If a segment of users names a proxy, and there is a central proxy table showing these assignments (or the data can be easily collected in some way), then it becomes possible to estimate consensus by assuming that a vote or position taken by a proxy, upon consideration, is, on average, more likely than not to represent the position of the "client." There are more possibilities as well. This was a proposal for "delegable proxy." Which can be used as an election method for a proportional representation assembly.

I'm opposed to the direct exercise of power by proxies on Wikipedia; however, there are at least two major problems with the community consensus model. The first is that "consensus" is not defined. In some organizations, it means total agreement, which is obviously desirable, and very small groups can often work out total consensus, and process for doing that is fairly well understood. But that process requires a lot of communication, which takes a lot of time, and medium-size organizations (it starts to happen with roughly twenty participants or less) can find themselves taking extraordinary amounts of time making decisions, and burnout starts to occur, especially if the situation goes on for years. With large organizations it becomes impossible for consensus to be negotiated directly. The classic solution is representative democracy through elections, but, as it is normally implemented, it, shall we say, violates the wiki way. This method can work, obviously, particularly if the election method is good. Among the best of those in common use is Single transferable vote; one might note that I'm a prominent critic of Instant-runoff voting which uses the same counting method as STV for single-winner, where the small problems of STV loom large, but STV, under good conditions, can work almost as well as what I'm going to suggest. A better method, simpler and more suitable for our purpose, was proposed in 1886 by Charles Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll. Dodgson was working on proportional representation, and he was familiar with STV. Apparently he realized that vote transfers could take place, rather than according to a preference list on a voter's ballot, but according to the discretion of a candidate who has received votes. And then a candidate who receives, directly or indirectly, a quota of votes, is elected.

What is remarkable about this method is that it is not oppositional. Voters, acting through representatives whom they unconditionally chose, cooperate to create seats in an Assembly. Delegable proxy can be used as the method of collecting votes. If we simply assume that editors name the person they most trust, among all the other registered editors, we can then analyze these assignments and create an assembly as a standing body. "Election" is continuous, because editors may change their proxy assignments at any time. There are quite a few obvious objections, but, let me assure my readers that there are solutions to the obvious problems.

How would the rules of the Assembly be determined? Traditionally, an Assembly makes its own rules. It starts with a General Assembly, where all eligible members (which would, here, presumably be all registered editors, perhaps registered for a certain minimum time, or with other requirements) meet and determine rules. Given that Wikipedia has already grown to a size where this meeting could be itself intractable )witness this page), I'd suggest that:

WP:PRX be re-examined, and the simplest and most efficient method of naming proxies and collecting the proxy information be chosen. There were two methods on the virtual table when the proposal was abruptly rejected, both involving transclusion of proxy files in user space: a fairly complex system proposed by Sarsaparilla (now blocked) with some help from Mangojuice, which has a central table and additional tables in other locations didn't work, and a more distributed technique that I set up, where the proxy files are simpler and a proxy table can exist anywhere, i.e., there can be many of them.

An Assembly page be created, with certain proposed rules. The first of these rules would be that the main Assembly page not be for debate, but for report. Rather, for any issue to be discussed or debated, a subpage is created, with a link from the main Assembly page.

These subpages are virtual committees. Committees would seek consensus among their participants, and proxy assignments would be considered in the estimation of consensus. Committees don't make decisions, they make recommendations, and each recomendation is accompanied by a report of the vote status of the recommendation or recommendations (there can be many alternate drafts, each with its own vote, but there would be, following standard deliberative procedure, always a central, main text, which is amended by, yes, majority vote. However, the complete report of the committee is not limited to that single draft.

Debate would be kept off the Assembly page *and* the Assembly talk page, except within certain rules that the Assembly would establish. It is not only unnecessary to set these rules in advance, it's a bad idea. The process I'm suggesting here is merely one of a practically infinite number of ways that the Assembly could operate, but key is that the Assembly has control over its own process, and it may take whatever steps are necessary such that its deliberations are thorough, complete, and represent genuine consensus as best can be estimated.

Voting, in this system, would never be undertaken until after consensus has appeared that discussion has been thorough. Under classic rules, it takes a two-thirds vote to close debate. In peer organizations where unity is important, and I'd suggest that Wikipedia qualifies, extraordinary efforts are made to ensure that consideration of any issue is complete, and a lot of effort is put into maximizing consensus in an attempt to satisfy everyone. But the decision to move on does not require consensus, and the majority is never dragged through tendentious debate without its consent. Consensus is desirable, but majority, properly, rules, and it will rule wisely if it seeks consensus.

So one of the defects of the current model is that voting and debate are mixed, and many votes are cast before all the relevant arguments have been made. Yes, sometimes people go back and change their votes, but ... since votes don't count anyway, many don't bother. I've argued that there should be no voting in AfDs, but only the presentation of evidence and argument, and it's enough, for this purpose, that an argument be made once. Making the same argument twenty or thirty times simply makes it harder to follow. *Then*, after the appropriate time has lapsed, and without objection, there is a vote. Which is only a vote, not another round of comment. It's a decision, not a debate, and the decision is made by each editor who votes. But does this control the outcome?

It shouldn't. It's *advice*, where the community advises the volunteers who will implement decisions. In other words, the basic system doesn't change, but the process by which consensus is discovered becomes clearer and more efficient.

The Assembly can create itself. Delegable proxy would facilitate this, as well as an understanding that the purpose of the Assembly is not to control, but to advise, on behalf of the community and for the benefit of the community. Actual control is exercised by those with the power to act as necessary. This is individual editors working on articles, administrators deleting and taking other actions requiring buttons, and officers of the Foundation.

As I mentioned, the Assembly would begin with an assumption that every editor is eligible to participate. As to voting in the Assembly, I'd suggest, that privilege would remain. The problems of scale don't come from voting, they come from deliberation and debate. The Assembly may decide to restrict who can post to the Assembly pages, and committees may decide likewise, whenever traffic becomes a problem. The decision is made, though, by vote, and everyone can vote. So, if it happens, people will be deciding to restrict their own right to argue before the Assembly. Delegable proxy helps, with special proxy assignments for committees, as needed (that's a feature of delegable proxy that wasn't described in WP:PRX -- a special proxy table can be set up that assigns proxies that override the general assignment. It's quite easy and simple to do, and nobody need name a special proxy: if they don't their general proxy stands, and, in any case, they may vote directly. Proxies are used to estimate the position of those who haven't had the time to participate directly.

(It could be thought that people won't vote to restrict their own right to debate, but, in fact, if we elect an assembly, that is exactly what we are doing, we are confining the right to deliberate (and to vote, probably, as well) to elected members. If such an assembly is created democratically, rather than being imposed, people will have indeed voted to remove certain rights from themselves.)

The classic, immediate response to proxies here and elsewhere for internet usage, has been "what about sock puppets?" It's actually not an issue. First of all, puppet masters don't like painting large signs identifying their puppets. Sarsaparilla named me as his proxy, and we were promptly checkusered. While that won't be routine, I'm sure, some level of suspicion is natural where an unknown user registers and names a proxy right away. But one of the reasons I wanted distributed proxy tables is that special tables can be developed that take into account such things as edit count or even choices made by the person seeking advice. The proxy assignments are used to set up a communications network that is used to develop advice, not control. And a good argument is a good argument whether presented by one or twenty people and the same is true of poor arguments. Socks, if there were *lots* of them, which seems rather unlikely to me, could distort the Assembly process decisions, which are necessarily made by majority vote unless we are to create officers (there goes the bureaucracy), but in a consensus system, mere majority vote can't do much, and suspicious votes, where the expanded vote radically differs from the vote of the participants, would surely create some investigation on the part of those who care, and suspicion would immediately center on a single person exercising many votes coming from suspicious users.

We have before us a means of creating an Assembly without elections, without bureaucracy, where small numbers may seek and express consensus and the degree of consensus is known far more accurately, and the discussion can be far more thorough, than at present. But, folks, it takes at least two people to start it, better if there are three. We had two, one was blocked. Any takers? Be aware, there are forces here that don't want true deliberative consensus to be found. Don't be surprised if they come out of the woodwork. I'd love to be wrong about this!

--Abd (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I hereby name Kim Bruning as my proxy in all debates unless I otherwise state otherwise. From this point forwards Kim Bruning's voice carries the weight of two Wikipedians, and I am now free to not get so frustrated with policy discussions. Hiding T 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• ...you can't do that. Wasn't that idea absolute buried by the community? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find I just did. It is even part of policy, per WP:SILENCE, which explains an important facet of WP:CONSENSUS. I alos missed the policy which afforded you the right to tell me what I can or cannot do. Note I am not proposing anything preposterous, such as Kim now being subject to 6RR, with admin's having to block me or Kim at random if breaches occur. Please perhaps consider my response a rebuttal to that which precedes it. As well as positing the notion that in many areas me and Kim tend to agree and it makes more sense for Kim to express the view we tend to share as he has a better way with words. Where I disagree with Kim, you'll find I am soon quick to say so. It is either that, or a lot of "I think Kim has captured the flaws in this proposal well, to the extent that I agree with his conclusions" type postings. All the bst, Hiding T 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is too bizarre and I've brought it up on WP:AN. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite obviously this is too bizarre. That's probably as far as you should have gone with it, but there you go. No real harm done. I would take care to read what I am actually saying, and see to what extent it goes. Hiding T 12:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it and I disagree with the proxy idea, for two different reasons. First, it doesn't solve any problem. Either the decisions are ultimately made by the merit of the arguments (for better or worse, I don't like it, since it's too subjective, but I digress), and then it is irrelevant how many people are behind a given argument; so the proxy is worthless. Or the decisions are made on the basis how many people want the given decision, regardless of the argument (which is in fact democracy or voting); then the proxy idea has some merit (but see my second objection below), however, the people who propose it are against such system. So people who want proxying (Kim, Hiding, Abd) at the same time oppose the circumstances where it is actually useful (that's why I say it doesn't solve any problem).

The second objection is complexity. Say, Kim comes to a discussion and says, "I represent 2 people". How do I check that it is true? Kim can have it written on his page, but I would have to check if this was really edited by Hiding, and not by Kim. Now imagine, you have a discussion, and there is like 20 people, each representing 8 other users. Who will do all the checks? That's completely crazy. And don't let me even start when someone who is a proxy will also let another person to be their proxy, then you would have to check everybody all the way down. It's not humanly possible. Samohyl Jan (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I want proxying? Oh ok. I'll take my cue from you then.

Nah, just kidding. In the mean time, I've stated on AN/I that I'll think about this interesting conundrum for at least 24 hours. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you don't support proxying, but that's irrelevant to my point. Samohyl Jan (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to have placed you in such an awkward position, Kim, but you are arguing the points well enough for me at this point. You certainly had my proxy when you marked the proxy proposal as rejected, per my not reverting it or commenting on it either away anyweher on Wikipedia until this moment. :-) Hiding T 12:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)