[WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee elections, 2005

Wed Oct 26 01:33:38 UTC 2005

On 10/25/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w Jimbo's decision.
> Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters
> strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like
> myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no
> chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better
> arbiter?

Jimbo is remarkably easy to talk to and is pretty accessible.  If you
want to be an Arbitrator, it really does make sense for you to make
the minimal effort to make contact with Jimbo.

Anyone who doesn't realize that there are influence structures in
Wikipedia isn't paying attention.  If you want to move up in
influence, it helps to be known, and known well, to those who already
have it.  This is true whether people with influence are selected by
appointment or by election.

We have suggested choosing Arbitrators by loading Recent Changes at a
random unannounced time and appointing the first 12 names to appear
there.  While I think this would be resoundingly unsatisfactory to
most members of the community, it would eliminate most claims of bias.
:)

Kelly