Wales implies he'll be seeking permission for "powers"

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:11 pm

This sounds like big changes will be sought by Mr. Wales from "the community" come January in a sort of Wikipedia constitution. He appears to want the power once again to appoint administrators by fiat. Will be interested to hear from people who know more of the history if this sort of thing has been mooted before.

In short, I'm planning in January to submit to the community for a full project-wide vote a new charter further transitioning my powers. Because the changes I hope to make are substantial, I will seek endorsement from the wider community. (There are powers which I theoretically hold, but can't practically use without causing a lot of drama, but it is increasingly clear to me that we need those powers to be usable, which means transitioning them into a community-based model of constitutional change. One good example of this is the ongoing admin-appointment situation... a problem which I think most people agree needs to be solved, but for which our usual processes have proven ineffective for change. Some have asked me to simply use my reserve powers to appoint a bunch of admins - but I've declined on the view that this would cause a useless fight. Much better will be for us to put my traditional powers on a community-based footing so that we, as a community, can get out of "corner solutions" that aren't working for us. More to come in January.

Would prefer not to have a random speculative fear-mongering discussion about this today. Leave the end-of-the-world doomsaying to the Mayans. (Or rather, to the nutters who willfully misinterpreted the Mayans!) There will be plenty of time for panic in January. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What do people think the odds are of a "community process" restoring greater power to the unelected Mr. Wales? (I have no idea at this point).

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:20 pm

Here is a recent discussion of ours on the dramatic decline of senior editors ("administrators") at Wikipedia.

Below is a Wikimedia graph laying out the decline in "active administrators" since 2007 through early June.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:25 pm

DanMurphy wrote:What do people think the odds are of a "community process" restoring greater power to the unelected Mr. Wales? (I have no idea at this point).

I wonder about the mentality around here sometimes that seems to both preclude rational thought and to read into every Jimbo word/deed something Machiavellian. Your interpretation is about as off-the-mark as one can get.

Wales is saying he access to the technical tools to do these, but lacks the community consensus to use those tools on his own to fix problems e.g. the flaws with RfA. Therefore, he wants the community to decide how to take that power/authority from him and vest it back into the community to use.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:29 pm

Tarc wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:What do people think the odds are of a "community process" restoring greater power to the unelected Mr. Wales? (I have no idea at this point).
I wonder about the mentality around here sometimes that seems to both preclude rational thought and to read into every Jimbo word/deed something Machiavellian.

Wales is saying he access to the technical tools to do these, but lacks the community consensus to use those tools on his own to fix problems e.g. the flaws with RfA. Therefore, he wants the community to decide how to take that power/authority from him and vest it back into the community to use.

I may indeed be misreading him. That has nothing to do with mentality. I take him to be saying he'd, in effect, "like formal community permission to appoint administrators again." Perhaps, as you imply, he's saying some new community process should be created to replace their current community process for picking administrators. But he should just come out and say it. Obviously, we'll know/understand more when an actual proposal is made. I suspect this will all create quite a stir in Wikiland.

In absolute fairness, this sentence, "There are powers which I theoretically hold, but can't practically use without causing a lot of drama, but it is increasingly clear to me that we need those powers to be usable, which means transitioning them into a community-based model of constitutional change," can be read multiple ways.

By his use of "them" in "which means transitioning them" I take him to be referring to "the powers which I theoretically hold, but can't practically use." That is, his powers.

But sure, I could be wrong as to his intent. He is frequently unclear.

Captain Occam · Unread post by **Captain Occam** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:45 pm

This relates to something that The Economist published a letter from me about a couple years ago. (It's the letter from Jonathan Kane, about halfway down the page.)

Even though democracy is probably the best type of government in the real world, I've always been suspicious of its ability to work in online communities, and the way Wikipedia's admins get appointed is a good example of the problems it can have. In an online community, people who aren't happy with the adminship usually just leave, leaving a small fraction of the community to choose admins that serve their own interests. In all the online communities I've been part of, those that worked best were those that had a system of governance more similar to a feudalist monarchy, in which the community's founder took an active role in choosing admins who would act in a way consistent with the community's original vision.

I know Jimbo isn't very popular at this board, but I think there's a decent chance admins chosen by him would perform better than admins chosen using the current method.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:55 pm

DanMurphy wrote:the dramatic decline of senior editors ("administrators") at Wikipedia

You can make anything look "dramatic" when you show it out of context (with a Y-axis that doesn't start at zero, to boot). Add in the number of active editors and it suddenly looks a whole lot less interesting.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:04 pm

It's a more than 30 percent decline from the peak in 2007, even as the number of articles has grown substantially.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:19 pm

DanMurphy wrote:It's a more than 30 percent decline from the peak in 2007, even as the number of articles has grown substantially.

The ratio of admins/core editors has dropped too somewhat.

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:59 am

Hex wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:the dramatic decline of senior editors ("administrators") at Wikipedia
You can make anything look "dramatic" when you show it out of context (with a Y-axis that doesn't start at zero, to boot). Add in the number of active editors and it suddenly looks a whole lot less interesting.

Your point about the vertical axis not starting at zero is a good one, but you can also make anything look "a whole lot less interesting" by including irrelevant "context" as a pretext for making the horizontal axis proportionately more than six times larger than it needs to be. Of all the graphs available on commons to represent the decline in active administrators, this one would appear to me to be the most appropriate for this discussion:

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:16 am

If Jimbo really wants the power to appoint admins at will, I have a lot of trouble imagining that the community would agree to that.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:03 am

DanMurphy wrote: What do people think the odds are of a "community process" restoring greater power to the unelected Mr. Wales? (I have no idea at this point).

I am in favor of Jimmy Wales continuing to transition out of the picture in terms of practical powers on WP. I think the notion of "Adminiship is No Big Deal" has had its day, for better or worse, and the idea that there should be an alternative channel of new administrators to the ordinary RfA process is a wrong path.

I am strongly supportive of Wales' continuation as the public face and ceremonial leader of the institution... I think he's doing an excellent job of that, actually.

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:08 am

Hex wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:the dramatic decline of senior editors ("administrators") at Wikipedia
You can make anything look "dramatic" when you show it out of context (with a Y-axis that doesn't start at zero, to boot). Add in the number of active editors and it suddenly looks a whole lot less interesting.

Exactly. I hate graphs with repressed zeros...

The number of administrators is in decline, no doubt about it. Whether this is a bad thing remains to be demonstrated. I would argue that there are already way too many sets of power buttons in hands where they do not need to be. I'm good with a super strong elected ArbCom to whack who needs to be whacked, and a much smaller number of shoot-from-the-hip Administrators.

RfB

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:45 am

everyking wrote:If Jimbo really wants the power to appoint admins at will, I have a lot of trouble imagining that the community would agree to that.

And if he does? What can his opposers do? Resign? Leave? There are plenty who would willing do whatever to get power and would follow Jimbo. Wikipedia would still go on. I'm still surprised he let the Commons community strip him of some of his Founder powers. Look what happened with the original Encyclopedia Dramatica becoming "Oh Internet!" Some left, some forked, and others stayed. Big deal. Look at what happened to Wikipedia Review. It's still there, though a shadow of its former self. Unlike WR, I think the English Wikipedia would still go on even if Jimbo performed a palace coup. It might even get better.

It's time for Jimbo to arise like almighty Smaug (T-H-L) from the Lonely Mountain and put terror into the community!

:obliterate:

In short, online communities really do not have the power they think they have. There's always someone above them.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:02 am

Regarding admin appointments, I like this option from Looie. Replace directly elected admins with an elected AdminCom that gives and takes away buttons. I'd prefer ArbCom to have the right to veto any AdminCom decision.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:18 am

The Joy wrote:
It's time for Jimbo to arise like almighty Smaug (T-H-L) from the Lonely Mountain and put terror into the community!

I think you'll find he sees himself more as Aslan (T-H-L) than Smaug.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:59 pm

I think reforms to the adminship process must be desirable. If Mr Wales is intending to do something about this, then it must be welcome. The OP doesn't really make clear what is intended; on the face of it, iiuc, it says that he intends to give some group some powers which he actually has but doesn't dare use for fear of PR consequences.

I think replacing the entire system of admins with people who are sensible and accountable would be a very good idea. Likewise deleting all the existing "policies" (which aren't followed anyway) and starting again would be a very good idea.

The problem is not that the existing system is democratic -- it isn't -- but rather that it is "democratic" in the way that student politics is "democratic". That is, that normal people don't take part and have no veto, so the weirdos rule.

In online communities you have to have a backbone of sane, mature and sensible people, acting in a responsible manner towards those involved and contributing. Anything else turns into a "Lord of the Flies" situation; and Wikipedia is in just such a state. Currently I wouldn't recommend anyone contribute to it, for their own safety and peace of mind.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:08 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I am strongly supportive of Wales' continuation as the public face and ceremonial leader of the institution... I think he's doing an excellent job of that, actually.

RfB

Is it that you think it is "excellent" for him to lie through his teeth so frequently (perhaps because this protects your deeply flawed project), or is it "excellent" because you don't even realize you're being lied to?

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:28 pm

Wales, uhm, "clarifies" at his talk page. Oracular as always!

I will await with interest. I trust the venues for discussion and, if there is consensus, adoption, will be the normal community processes?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The normal community processes are precisely what the reserve powers are meant to allow us to modify in new ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Backwards run sentences until reeled the mind. I am 70% certain I know what this sentence is saying, but can't be sure. (If one untortures the grammar this should mean "The reserve powers allow me to modify the existing community processes, but I need to build support for doing that." But he uses language in strained, unclear, seeming deliberately obscure ways, so go know.)

Willbeheard · Unread post by **Willbeheard** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:59 pm

lonza leggiera wrote:Of all the graphs available on commons to represent the decline in active administrators, this one would appear to me to be the most appropriate for this discussion:

That graph is already slightly out of date. It looks from other graphs as if there was a slight rise in August, followed by a continuing decline into November.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categ ... _Wikipedia

It would be interesting to see data on the number of admins doing admin-type things like blocks and file deletes; maybe there's a big decline in the sort of admin who actually edits, but not in the sort who likes to block and delete.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:14 pm

lonza leggiera wrote:You can also make anything look "a whole lot less interesting" by including irrelevant "context" as a pretext for making the horizontal axis proportionately more than six times larger than it needs to be.

I find your lack of math disturbing.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:24 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Wales, uhm, "clarifies" at his talk page. Oracular as always!

I will await with interest. I trust the venues for discussion and, if there is consensus, adoption, will be the normal community processes?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The normal community processes are precisely what the reserve powers are meant to allow us to modify in new ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Backwards run sentences until reeled the mind. I am 70% certain I know what this sentence is saying, but can't be sure. (If one untortures the grammar this should mean "The reserve powers allow me to modify the existing community processes, but I need to build support for doing that." But he uses language in strained, unclear, seeming deliberately obscure ways, so go know.)

The Wehwalt comment means "please tell me that whatever you want to do will be via the usual methods controlled by the trolls". Wales' response is "No, that's not what I want to do. I think that we need to change the 'usual way'. So I intend to get support to do so, so that the trolls don't yell at me".

Which is reasonable.

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:51 am

Willbeheard wrote:
lonza leggiera wrote:Of all the graphs available on commons to represent the decline in active administrators, this one would appear to me to be the most appropriate for this discussion:
That graph is already slightly out of date. ...

True, but then the graph Dan Murphy posted was even further out of date. For the purpose of simply illustrating the decline in active administrators I can't see that this matters very much. The changes in successive months from June 2012 onwards were all within one and a half standard deviations of the mean monthly decrease of 6.2 over the period from February 2008, so there seems to be no obviously significant departure from that approximately linear downward trend.

... It looks from other graphs as if there was a slight rise in August followed by a continuing decline into November.

Yes. The actual figures used to create the graphs are here (click on "show" to see the table). The numbers for June to November were: 703, 693, 702, 694, 674, 661.

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:56 am

roger_pearse wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Wales, uhm, "clarifies" at his talk page. Oracular as always!

I will await with interest. I trust the venues for discussion and, if there is consensus, adoption, will be the normal community processes?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The normal community processes are precisely what the reserve powers are meant to allow us to modify in new ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Backwards run sentences until reeled the mind. I am 70% certain I know what this sentence is saying, but can't be sure. (If one untortures the grammar this should mean "The reserve powers allow me to modify the existing community processes, but I need to build support for doing that." But he uses language in strained, unclear, seeming deliberately obscure ways, so go know.)
The Wehwalt comment means "please tell me that whatever you want to do will be via the usual methods controlled by the trolls". Wales' response is "No, that's not what I want to do. I think that we need to change the 'usual way'. So I intend to get support to do so, so that the trolls don't yell at me".

Which is reasonable.

A mature community ought to be able to manage its own affairs. Wikipedians have not done a stellar job of that so far, but they have also not done a poor job, either. Jimbo, on the other hand, has a long history of making bad decisions whenever he gets involved in community affairs--he acts without regard for conventions, acts based on mere whim, acts without learning all the facts. It wouldn't be good for anyone to have the power Jimbo is suggesting, but if anyone was going to have it, Jimbo seems like a rather poor candidate.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:31 am

everyking wrote:
roger_pearse wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Wales, uhm, "clarifies" at his talk page. Oracular as always!

I will await with interest. I trust the venues for discussion and, if there is consensus, adoption, will be the normal community processes?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The normal community processes are precisely what the reserve powers are meant to allow us to modify in new ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Backwards run sentences until reeled the mind. I am 70% certain I know what this sentence is saying, but can't be sure. (If one untortures the grammar this should mean "The reserve powers allow me to modify the existing community processes, but I need to build support for doing that." But he uses language in strained, unclear, seeming deliberately obscure ways, so go know.)
The Wehwalt comment means "please tell me that whatever you want to do will be via the usual methods controlled by the trolls". Wales' response is "No, that's not what I want to do. I think that we need to change the 'usual way'. So I intend to get support to do so, so that the trolls don't yell at me".

Which is reasonable.
A mature community ought to be able to manage its own affairs. Wikipedians have not done a stellar job of that so far, but they have also not done a poor job, either. Jimbo, on the other hand, has a long history of making bad decisions whenever he gets involved in community affairs--he acts without regard for conventions, acts based on mere whim, acts without learning all the facts. It wouldn't be good for anyone to have the power Jimbo is suggesting, but if anyone was going to have it, Jimbo seems like a rather poor candidate.

Anakin: "We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem. Agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and do it."
Padme: "That's exactly what they do, the trouble is that people don't always agree."
Anakin: "Then they should be made to."
Padme: "By whom? Who's going to make them?"
Anakin: "I don't know. Someone."
Padme: "You?"
Anakin: "Of course not me!"
Padme: "Then someone...?"
Anakin: "Someone wise."
Padme: "That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me."
Anakin: "Well... if it works..."

-Stars Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

Poor everyking. You'll be the first to go and Darth Raul will be pleased!

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:55 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Hex wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:the dramatic decline of senior editors ("administrators") at Wikipedia
You can make anything look "dramatic" when you show it out of context (with a Y-axis that doesn't start at zero, to boot). Add in the number of active editors and it suddenly looks a whole lot less interesting.

Exactly. I hate graphs with repressed zeros...

The number of administrators is in decline, no doubt about it. Whether this is a bad thing remains to be demonstrated. I would argue that there are already way too many sets of power buttons in hands where they do not need to be. I'm good with a super strong elected ArbCom to whack who needs to be whacked, and a much smaller number of shoot-from-the-hip Administrators.

RfB

We've been through this before. However you wanna graph it, the key point is that that the trend is heading right for zero, it's not bottoming out (yes, if you fit a quadratic equation to it, it will tell you that a turn around will occur - but that's because a quadratic equation ALWAYS has a flip of the slope)

Ajraddatz · Unread post by **Ajraddatz** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:45 am

As nice as all of the graphs indicating our impending doom are, what we should be looking at for whether or not there are enough admins to get the required jobs done. If the answer is no, get more admins. If the answer is yes, still accept new admins, just be a bit more picky when choosing them. It has (in my opinion) little to do with active users and more to do with what needs doing, and how many people it takes to do it. Comparing the ratio of active users/admins seems like comparing indians/chiefs, which shouldn't be the case with admins.

As to giving Jimbo supreme executive powers to deal with the crisis, I don't know. All of the other Wikimedia projects seem to function without him, but maybe enwiki needs an extra bit of outside control.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:42 am

Ajraddatz wrote:As nice as all of the graphs indicating our impending doom are, what we should be looking at for whether or not there are enough admins to get the required jobs done. If the answer is no, get more admins. If the answer is yes, still accept new admins, just be a bit more picky when choosing them. It has (in my opinion) little to do with active users and more to do with what needs doing, and how many people it takes to do it. Comparing the ratio of active users/admins seems like comparing indians/chiefs, which shouldn't be the case with admins.

As to giving Jimbo supreme executive powers to deal with the crisis, I don't know. All of the other Wikimedia projects seem to function without him, but maybe enwiki needs an extra bit of outside control.

The way I'd put it is: "All of the other Wikimedia projects seem to dysfunction without him", which is probably true enough. Also, comparing indians and chiefs is a quite legitimate exercise. You're mixing your appl... err, metaphors.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:11 am

everyking wrote:
roger_pearse wrote: The Wehwalt comment means "please tell me that whatever you want to do will be via the usual methods controlled by the trolls". Wales' response is "No, that's not what I want to do. I think that we need to change the 'usual way'. So I intend to get support to do so, so that the trolls don't yell at me".

Which is reasonable.
A mature community ought to be able to manage its own affairs.

Ah, you push one of my linguistic buttons here! Individuals may become mature (or not!), but "community" is merely a term for a group of individuals interacting in various ways, which do not change in the way that an organic entity does. Let's not confuse ourselves with adjectives (used usually to spread approval or disapproval like peanut butter), as if a "community" was an animal experiencing ageing.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree, otherwise.

Wikipedians have not done a stellar job of that so far, but they have also not done a poor job, either.

I'm afraid that I couldn't agree with that. The system of appointing admins is very broken indeed. Those chosen keep out the most obvious spam, but they also keep out the sort of contributors that Wikipedia should be desperate to attract and retain.

Most people would agree with what you write; until they have occasion to experienced personally Wikipedia's rules and rulers. At that point a not-so-small number feel something very like outrage at how they are dealt with, and this is why there are so many stories online by ex-wikipedians (and there would be many more, were it not a normal part of the bullying to make the victim feel guilty as well as hurt, thereby embarassing them into keeping quiet).

It is very easy to treat people fairly, to make them feel valued, to protect them from the criminal element whose sole goal is power over others. You merely have to make the effort to do so, when you run such a website. In contrast, the owners of Wikipedia treat its contributors like meat.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

everyking · Unread post by **everyking** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:04 am

roger_pearse wrote:
everyking wrote:
roger_pearse wrote: The Wehwalt comment means "please tell me that whatever you want to do will be via the usual methods controlled by the trolls". Wales' response is "No, that's not what I want to do. I think that we need to change the 'usual way'. So I intend to get support to do so, so that the trolls don't yell at me".

Which is reasonable.
A mature community ought to be able to manage its own affairs.
Ah, you push one of my linguistic buttons here! Individuals may become mature (or not!), but "community" is merely a term for a group of individuals interacting in various ways, which do not change in the way that an organic entity does. Let's not confuse ourselves with adjectives (used usually to spread approval or disapproval like peanut butter), as if a "community" was an animal experiencing ageing.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree, otherwise.

Wikipedians have not done a stellar job of that so far, but they have also not done a poor job, either.
I'm afraid that I couldn't agree with that. The system of appointing admins is very broken indeed. Those chosen keep out the most obvious spam, but they also keep out the sort of contributors that Wikipedia should be desperate to attract and retain.

Most people would agree with what you write; until they have occasion to experienced personally Wikipedia's rules and rulers. At that point a not-so-small number feel something very like outrage at how they are dealt with, and this is why there are so many stories online by ex-wikipedians (and there would be many more, were it not a normal part of the bullying to make the victim feel guilty as well as hurt, thereby embarassing them into keeping quiet).

It is very easy to treat people fairly, to make them feel valued, to protect them from the criminal element whose sole goal is power over others. You merely have to make the effort to do so, when you run such a website. In contrast, the owners of Wikipedia treat its contributors like meat.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

If you want to assign blame for all that, you should start with the person who has perhaps done more to contribute to those abusive practices than any other single individual. Time and time again Jimbo has endorsed and encouraged mistreatment of Wikipedia's volunteers, while giving uncritical support to the project's worst bullies. Giving Jimbo this special new power would do no good at all, and it probably would do a fair degree of harm. He would not, in all likelihood, use the power to appoint hardworking contributors who have been unable to satisfy the community's exacting standards; he would just use it to dole out special favors to those he likes, perhaps to individuals who could not pass RfA for very good reasons.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:35 am

everyking wrote:If you want to assign blame for all that, you should start with the person who has perhaps done more to contribute to those abusive practices than any other single individual. Time and time again Jimbo has endorsed and encouraged mistreatment of Wikipedia's volunteers, while giving uncritical support to the project's worst bullies. Giving Jimbo this special new power would do no good at all, and it probably would do a fair degree of harm. He would not, in all likelihood, use the power to appoint hardworking contributors who have been unable to satisfy the community's exacting standards; he would just use it to dole out special favors to those he likes, perhaps to individuals who could not pass RfA for very good reasons.

Right on the money. And I suspect the ship has sailed anyway, the place is now controlled by people even crankier than the cranks Jimbo installed
in the early days, from 2002 until Arbcom was election-only, circa 2007-08. A lot of the new trolls (mad patrollers and bot drivers) don't like Jimbo,
so this scheme is not a foregone conclusion.

roger_pearse · Unread post by **roger_pearse** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:28 pm

everyking wrote:
roger_pearse wrote:
everyking wrote:
roger_pearse wrote: The Wehwalt comment means "please tell me that whatever you want to do will be via the usual methods controlled by the trolls". Wales' response is "No, that's not what I want to do. I think that we need to change the 'usual way'. So I intend to get support to do so, so that the trolls don't yell at me".

Which is reasonable.
A mature community ought to be able to manage its own affairs.
Ah, you push one of my linguistic buttons here! Individuals may become mature (or not!), but "community" is merely a term for a group of individuals interacting in various ways, which do not change in the way that an organic entity does. Let's not confuse ourselves with adjectives (used usually to spread approval or disapproval like peanut butter), as if a "community" was an animal experiencing ageing.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree, otherwise.

Wikipedians have not done a stellar job of that so far, but they have also not done a poor job, either.
I'm afraid that I couldn't agree with that. The system of appointing admins is very broken indeed. Those chosen keep out the most obvious spam, but they also keep out the sort of contributors that Wikipedia should be desperate to attract and retain.

Most people would agree with what you write; until they have occasion to experienced personally Wikipedia's rules and rulers. At that point a not-so-small number feel something very like outrage at how they are dealt with, and this is why there are so many stories online by ex-wikipedians (and there would be many more, were it not a normal part of the bullying to make the victim feel guilty as well as hurt, thereby embarassing them into keeping quiet).

It is very easy to treat people fairly, to make them feel valued, to protect them from the criminal element whose sole goal is power over others. You merely have to make the effort to do so, when you run such a website. In contrast, the owners of Wikipedia treat its contributors like meat.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
If you want to assign blame for all that, you should start with the person who has perhaps done more to contribute to those abusive practices than any other single individual. Time and time again Jimbo has endorsed and encouraged mistreatment of Wikipedia's volunteers, while giving uncritical support to the project's worst bullies. Giving Jimbo this special new power would do no good at all, and it probably would do a fair degree of harm. He would not, in all likelihood, use the power to appoint hardworking contributors who have been unable to satisfy the community's exacting standards; he would just use it to dole out special favors to those he likes, perhaps to individuals who could not pass RfA for very good reasons.

Oh dear. Really? This I had not known.

Captain Occam · Unread post by **Captain Occam** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:09 am

everyking wrote:If you want to assign blame for all that, you should start with the person who has perhaps done more to contribute to those abusive practices than any other single individual. Time and time again Jimbo has endorsed and encouraged mistreatment of Wikipedia's volunteers, while giving uncritical support to the project's worst bullies. Giving Jimbo this special new power would do no good at all, and it probably would do a fair degree of harm. He would not, in all likelihood, use the power to appoint hardworking contributors who have been unable to satisfy the community's exacting standards; he would just use it to dole out special favors to those he likes, perhaps to individuals who could not pass RfA for very good reasons.

I can't say whether this is true or not, since I didn't start actively participating in Wikipedia until after Jimbo had already delegated all of his power to ArbCom. But if the system is likely to continue getting worse either way, don't you think it's better for that to happen on the watch of the community's founder, rather than while he's taking a hands-off approach? The way it is right now, whatever poor decisions get made by admins or by ArbCom, Jimbo can sidestep most of the blame with the argument that these admins or arbitrators were chosen by the community, not by him. As the community's founder, I think he should take more responsibility for what happens to it, so that if it fails it will clearly be his own fault and not someone else's.

greybeard · Unread post by **greybeard** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:03 am

everyking wrote:A mature community ought to be able to manage its own affairs. ... Wikipedians have not done a stellar job of that so far, but they have also not done a poor job, either.

roger_pearse wrote:Most people would agree with what you write; until they have occasion to experienced personally Wikipedia's rules and rulers. At that point a not-so-small number feel something very like outrage at how they are dealt with, and this is why there are so many stories online by ex-wikipedians

everyking wrote:If you want to assign blame for all that, you should start with the person who has perhaps done more to contribute to those abusive practices than any other single individual. Time and time again Jimbo has endorsed and encouraged mistreatment of Wikipedia's volunteers, while giving uncritical support to the project's worst bullies. Giving Jimbo this special new power ... probably would do a fair degree of harm.

I think that everyone in the conversation is missing a salient point, or perhaps they are just assuming it. But it needs to be stated: Even Jimmy Wales has concluded that Wikipedia's community culture is broken. Jimbo thinks that the solution to the dysfunction (that any thinking person can see in Wikipedia community) can and should be remedied by fiat action from the God-king. The thinking person knows that this is unlikely to be successful, especially when the God-king in question is the one most proximately responsible for the existing dysfunctional community.

The irony is that everyone knows the elements that would substantially improve (if not "fix") Wikipedia's broken governance: term limits for admins, a pluralistic jury system for disputes, a partition of article space to create smaller and more cohesive communities around certain topics, a hard ban on current events ("recentism" in WP-speak), and a handful of other things. But these actions won't be taken now, because Wikipedia is in decline, and all of those actions are feared to hasten the decline. Wikipedia is as parasitically co-dependent on its chattering classes as some other websites are on advertising -- they won't do anything they think has even the smallest possibility of further reducing the dwindling audience.

This is why the best hope for Wikipedia is a splinter project. With sufficient funding, someone could reboot Wikipedia into a more viable form, with appropriate governance, appropriate content guidelines (vis-a-vis BLPs, current events, pop-culture, etc), appropriate dispute resolution, appropriate space for experts, and so on. Right now the investment is too high, but Wikipedia's decline makes this path eventually inevitable.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:48 am

greybeard wrote:This is why the best hope for Wikipedia is a splinter project. With sufficient funding, someone could reboot Wikipedia into a more viable form, with appropriate governance, appropriate content guidelines (vis-a-vis BLPs, current events, pop-culture, etc), appropriate dispute resolution, appropriate space for experts, and so on. Right now the investment is too high, but Wikipedia's decline makes this path eventually inevitable.

Probably right. Just bear in mind how much pain (for an all-volunteer group) or cash (for a paid group) would be required to take the best of
en-WP, check it, and make it "trustworthy". It would be a massive job, even if limited to 5% of the article base. I don't picture any large universities,
governments, or even Web companies proposing it or offering to help run or pay for it.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:49 am

EricBarbour wrote:
greybeard wrote:This is why the best hope for Wikipedia is a splinter project. With sufficient funding, someone could reboot Wikipedia into a more viable form, with appropriate governance, appropriate content guidelines (vis-a-vis BLPs, current events, pop-culture, etc), appropriate dispute resolution, appropriate space for experts, and so on. Right now the investment is too high, but Wikipedia's decline makes this path eventually inevitable.
Probably right. Just bear in mind how much pain (for an all-volunteer group) or cash (for a paid group) would be required to take the best of
en-WP, check it, and make it "trustworthy". It would be a massive job, even if limited to 5% of the article base. I don't picture any large universities,
governments, or even Web companies proposing it or offering to help run or pay for it.

There is nothing inevitable about a replacement being anything like wikipedia. It will simply decline and something will replace it, probably a collection of specialist sites, collaborating together, interlinking and such like, probably a consortium of universities, museums, and libraries.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:00 pm

Captain Occam wrote:But if the system is likely to continue getting worse either way, don't you think it's better for that to happen on the watch of the community's founder...

You think Dr. Sanger should take a more active role, you're saying?

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:25 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=532013687

I wonder how much progress he has made so far.

Reaper Eternal · Unread post by **Reaper Eternal** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:12 pm

I wonder how much progress he has made so far.

He probably received a lot of flak via email for attempting to seek "powers".

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:18 pm

Just bumping: Wales wrote before Christmas. "In short, I'm planning in January to submit to the community for a full project-wide vote a new charter further transitioning my powers."

Today is February 6.

greybeard · Unread post by **greybeard** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:02 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Just bumping: Wales wrote before Christmas. "In short, I'm planning in January to submit to the community for a full project-wide vote a new charter further transitioning my powers."

Today is February 6.

Jimbo Wales fails to follow through on something he said!

In other news, the sun continues to rise in the East.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:10 pm

greybeard wrote:In other news, the sun continues to rise in the East.

There you go with that Earth-centric nonsense again.

(Thinks: do Wikipedians still debate that sort of crap? Should they be writing from a human point of view or a species neutral point of view?)

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:25 pm

greybeard wrote:In other news, the sun continues to rise in the East.

If I were a pedant, which I am not, I'd point out that the sun isn't rising at all at present near either the North Pole or the South Pole.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:48 pm

Bumping this because of the Arbcom resignations. I guess he got busy again?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:48 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Just bumping: Wales wrote before Christmas. "In short, I'm planning in January to submit to the community for a full project-wide vote a new charter further transitioning my powers."

Today is February 6.

Today is March 17th, still no news as far as I know.

cyofee · Unread post by **cyofee** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:47 pm

I assume Jimbo will be off to Rome shortly to negotiate with the Pope about revising the Gregorian calendar. If one thinks carefully, it becomes obvious that the year needs another January, preferably after November.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:50 am

I always schedule anything Jimbo promises to do on the 12th of Never on my calendar.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:23 pm

It's been a few days short of a year since Mr. Wales said he'd be proposing a "new charter" to "transition my powers" by the middle of January 2013.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:57 pm

DanMurphy wrote:It's been a few days short of a year since Mr. Wales said he'd be proposing a "new charter" to "transition my powers" by the middle of January 2013.

checking.......nope, nothing here. Play again real soon!

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:32 am

Out of all the many thoughtful promises by Jimbo so far, I think this one was my favorite.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:46 pm

I think JW's current role of ceremonial head-of-state and discussion moderator is perfect.

RfB