Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Filiocht: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Question from Marsden: Initial thoughts for Marsden |
|||
Line 117:
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]] 15:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:No simple answer here, I'm afraid. I've been around long enough to fondly remember the days when I was familiar with all the regulars on AfD, the Pump, etc. However, I'm painfully aware that the way things worked then have not really scaled with the project. On the other hand, I suffer from a deep-rooted aversion to "centrally controlled authoritarian system(s)". So my view is that we need to avoid going down the centralisation route as much as possible. We also need to build much clearer guidelines for consensus-building. Consensus is, at one and the same time, one of the most widely used and one of the most widely misunderstood words in Wikipedia debate. I would us like to put together an agreed definition of consensus and then to ensure that all decision-making processes work to that definition. ArbCom's role would probably be mainly to rule on cases of con-consensual behaviour. Who cares if the train is late if you have good neighbours to talk to on the platform? [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
| |||