Charter/General
Wiki vs mailing list
- Why not just post to the wikipedia-l or foundation-l mailing list with your proposals? (68.51.240.131 / 21:48, 14 Apr 2005)
Please login and sign with tildes; you wouldn't be here if you weren't an experienced Wikipedian, so I don't think I need to tell you why. In a face caucus, people do not normally identify themselves; they just walk up and join in, or stand around with their hands in their pockets waiting to hear something interesting. But in wikispace, unless you provide a handle, you not only have no name -- you have no face. [[User:Xiong|— Xiong熊talk]] 15:53, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)
At first, I did create a mailing list for caucus; but that model is insufficiently open. A mailing list has an owner, with extraordinary power over the list. Also, each text is passed once only to all members, then forgotten -- texts cannot be edited.
I'm not "the boss" here; think of me as the guy who walked into the room first, turned on the lights, and set out the chairs. I have no control over the discussion.
The wiki model is not only far superior in general but I think it is clearly superior for the purpose of discussing Wikipedia-related issues. Using a wiki is like having a whiteboard in the room. [[User:Xiong|— Xiong熊talk]] 16:14, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)
Agenda
I'm not sure what you mean by my proposals. I have ideas, true, but this caucus is not here to push them. I have made several commonsense assertions; question them if you like:
1. The Wikipedian Community is in a state of crisis.
2. The community at large has reacted to this crisis with multiple calls for a general Convention. Given the technical nature of wikispace, the community is thus already in convention.
3. Draft charters are visible on many pages of Wikipediaspace.
4. The size of the general membership is so great that political models appropriate to large groups apply.
5. Political business is not transacted on the open floor of a convention. Viable proposals only come out of caucus -- or are railroaded through by a single powerful faction.
By the way, this is not the only caucus! Other Wikipedians are caucusing right now. I don't know where, and I don't know who -- but I guarantee there are many rooms in cyberspace in which the topic of a Charter or Constitution for the Wikipedian Community is in the air.
Much worse, established factions are planning to advance their positions without listening to any opposition. I would like to see something of strength arise to oppose the One-Thing People. [[User:Xiong|— Xiong熊talk]] 16:14, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)
Instruction creep
If I am guided by one thought in all of this, it is that instruction creep, resort to authority, and endless policy revision is corrupting the fabric of our society. Editing WP seems to me like being locked in a phone booth with a thousand angry rabbis.
The primary purpose of many foundation documents, such as the United States of America's Bill of Rights, is to prevent the passage of some kinds of laws and regulations. Some agendas are flatly blocked from consideration.
I should dearly like a Charter that asserts its primacy -- its absolute command of all other rules and policies -- inhibits instruction creep, and forbids scope creep.
I wish to see that Charter -- whatever it may be -- endorsed by such an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians that it will not be possible to overturn it or elevate some other agenda to a superior position.
And this can only be done if that Charter is worked out very carefully, by a number of Wikipedians, who edit it mercilessly, but with the common goal of developing something we can all agree upon. I do not doubt that it will be a rather short document. [[User:Xiong|— Xiong熊talk]] 18:25, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)
