[WikiEN-l] Committees (Afd "votes")

Fri Sep 16 05:20:37 UTC 2005

Tony's alluding to issue of simple gaming of the
system. Its something we dont generally think is a big
problem, but there are certain cases in VFD/AFD which
seem out of balance with our prime directives. 
The Lost_Liberty_Hotel article, for example was a
total piece of dog shit from the beginning, and should
still be deleted --and thats coming from someone
rather sympathetic those concerned by the issues
raised by the Kelo case descision.

While perhaps a bit out of sync with our existing
concepts, we need oversight committees for a number of
areas --blocks, deletion, editorial policy, and
others.
In contentious cases, or cases which flounder in a
lack of consensus, the committee could make certain
descisions about articles, and follow some established
process. The distinction between a committee and
project of course would be that members are officers,
with some degree of review and trust in their
membership.

This is simply a natural extension of the existing
core government, and a natural growth of the core to
deal with the larger size. Some innovations have
rested on the work of developers (many major ones set
to be implemented), while others will require some
action for installing new social processes. (I had
thought the board would be a bit more hands on, but I
understand the distinction between foundation and
wiki). It might even be wise to start a committee that
deals with committee oversight. The last major change
in wiki-local government was when Jimbo formed the
Arbcom and Medcom. We shouldnt have to bug Jimbo to
decree a new committee if there is consensus for it--a
tabulated vote process could be used for major issues,
and anything produced would simply be an outgrowth of
consensus. How new voting sessions are instituted
would need some definition as well, but that seems
straigtforward (and sufficiently ceremonial) enough
for the founder to handle.

SV

--- Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I meant to respond to Ryan on this. As a AfD
> closer, I do expect all
> > participants in the debate to spend a few minutes,
> or whatever it takes,
> > reading the article, and then read the other
> comments in the debate, and
> > have a bit of a poke around the subject, possibly
> look at the article
> > history. If they're not doing at least the first
> two of those, they're not
> > making an informed comment. If I see them write a
> few words in the context
> > of the debate, I'm happier that there has been an
> informed discussion.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's your business to decide what is
> and isn't an "informed 
> decision". The person casting the vote thought their
> decision was informed 
> enough or they wouldn't be voting. If you think
> someone isn't well informed, 
> you inform them. You don't just discard their votes
> without comment.
> 
> - Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 

__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com