Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Morven: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 50:
Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements/Jpgordon suggested] that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? [[User:Marsden|Marsden]] 16:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:I might note that much of Mussolini's making the trains run on time was actually managed by making 'on time' less ambitious, and by telling ''Il Duce'' what he wanted to hear. That, and heavy doses of state expenditure.
:Irrelevant historical aside over. Wikipedia is not an experiment in Internet democracy, but rather an attempt to generate a free encyclopedia. Thus it is correct to say that the ArbCom's job is not justice but order. However, a long-termist view of order is that it requires decisions that the community is happy with, otherwise the project won't progress.
:I believe Wikipedia should operate with as little control ''as is feasible''. Rules and policies make it easier for troublemakers and the bureaucratically-minded to get their way, and harder for the regular contributor interested in content ahead of policy. I believe Wikipedia's current structure works better than many seem to think it does, because we notice the few noisy failures and not the quiet success. —[[User:Morven|Matthew Brown]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 20:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
==Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk==
| |||