Wales gives you complete charge, and you have three fundamental reforms that you are allowed to implement.

What would those be? And what are the problems or abuses that each are supposed to address?

For one, I'd definitely have named editors only, so there's some accountability.

1. ArbCom elections with a secret ballot and candidates using their real names during the election, not just after being appointed. I'd form a committee of trusted editors tasked with ensuring the offered names are genuine. The outcome of the election alone to determine who gets appointed.

-- It would reduce the likelihood of socking to get on ArbCom (though it wouldn't eliminate it). Would make the process and outcome more professional.

-- Downside: it would discourage people who've edited in contentious areas from standing, because they'd be less likely to want to identify themselves. That would mean fewer people on ArbCom with experience of handling contentious content disputes. However, the current process already favours people who've not been involved in disputes, so I don't think we'd make that aspect any worse, and I think the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks.

2. Either (a) no more BLPs unless the subject is already the subject of a biographical article in a high-quality mainstream publication, preferably an encyclopaedia; or (b) the subject has the right of reply in a pop-up box that's visible over the article. The latter was an idea of Patrick Byrne's.

-- The first option would remove most of our BLP problems, but would leave the project a lot less informative, so I'd be more inclined to go with (b) if we could make it work.

3. Everyone who holds a position (admin, Arb, checkuser, bureaucrat) to hold it for six months of the year only, and for the rest must work as an ordinary editor. The software would automatically give and withdraw access on a six-month rotation, assuming that could be done technically.

-- Would reduce the divide between editors, admins and others. Would prevent (or at least wouldn't facilitate) the formation of an admin class that administers the project but doesn't add content.

All positions of authority (including GodKing) either elected by secret ballot or appointed by standing committees, and all committees with appointment power must be elected by secret ballot with members required to stand for periodic reelection.

All broad policy to be decided by majority (or, when appropriate under the ordinary rules of deliberative assemblies, a two-thirds supermajority) vote, and such voting is to be conducted by secret ballot. All votes to be held in a central place, with clear notice of the opportunity to vote given to all community members (something akin to the "orange bar of doom" used for talk page messages).

I'd also implement a jury system for arbitrating disputes.

I would purge the servers, sell the IT equipment, sell the domain name "Wikipedia" and take the monies and give to some inner city library in need of real books.

I would say "Thanks but no thanks Jim. You got yourself into this mess."

1. To tackle content issues: Create an Editorial Board (or more like several - one for each subject area) with ultimate authority over all content issues composed of people with real-world expertise and credentials (those on the board might or might not already be Wikipedians).
2. To tackle vandalism and sockpuppetry: Display IP addresses beside usernames in page histories. Require account creation to edit along with a valid email address (a very low bar, but one that provides some protection). Allow users especially concerned about their privacy to hide the IP address only by registering a non-free email address (as is done on WR).
3. To address BLP issues: Create a system with a stable, displayed version of an article (that can not be edited) and a NOINDEXed workspace that can be edited. Periodically update the displayed version from the workspace after an approval process. In other words, a much much stronger version of flagged revisions.

More than three things are needed but since we need to pick the top three, I'll reiterate things I've said before

1. Real names, backed by a validation system at least as good as Amazon's. Can't be perfect, doesn't have to be, but something that costs money to game is goodness.
- This solves a whole host of problems at once... COI becomes much more apparent, socking goes away, and it enforces real life responsibility. If you're not willing to be responsible for your edits, or if you think it's dangerous to edit... DON'T.

2. Flagged revisions. Not some watered down scheme like we are going to get "any minute now" but the full deal.
- This takes away a lot of the incentive to vandalize because vandalism won't be visible. That takes away a lot of the work the MMORPG-admin-wannabees do so maybe they could concentrate on writing fancruft er I mean real articles.

3. BLP opt out. If you're not in a dead tree bio, your choice if in or out.
- This takes away a lot of incentive for a lot of things and it's just a good idea.

Some of the other stuff mentioned in the thread is good too but those are my top three.

There is only so much that can be done with the wiki model. The vast majority of the millions of articles will always be crap. Without recognizing and using expertise, very few article will ever reach a high level.

That being said, there are a few things that could help;

1) I would hire and a systems analyst (for lack of a better term). This person would be empowered to experiment, turn on and tune things like flagged revisions. They would be responsible for analyzing and measuring the results. It's easy to say 'I know all the answers'. It's hard to put one's imagination to the test, with genuine metrics, and honestly see how it matches up with reality.

2) BLP is one of the biggest problems. I'd try some things and see how they work; op-out, revision control, create and empower a sympathetic committee of editors to give personal attention to BLP victims.

3) Veropedia seemed to be a pretty good idea; take good articles and run them through some cleanup filters and publish them - revise as needed. Copy this idea with a Foundation sanctioned side project. Featured articles seems to be a logical place to start. Elect good editors for limited terms to run the project, or maybe FA writers. Pay them with the advertising revenues from the site. If the money is good enough consider hiring expert editors from academia to write an occasional article - they might be willing if their work doesn't get instantly shit on. Consider redirecting the wikipedia articles to the 'releasedpedia' articles, when they exists, with a back link for wiki editing. Nothing like a little competition to shake things up.

This is the bottom line, because most of the other problems would vanish if people couldn't come to Wikipedia and create whatever content they like in whatever way they like. In a sense, it would simply spoil the "fun."

But I'd also make explicit that the Board(s) would be the gatekeeper(s) for topics too.



Also a good idea, and worth extending beyond BLP to current news in general.

As opposed to fake books do you mean? Wouldn't they be cheaper?

1) Unban everybody and unprotect all articles.

2) Implement Encyc-style management system where admins are chosen by the God King, and allowed to serve as long as they encourage participation in the content-generation process.

3) Change the software so that only basic wiki code is allowed, so that source pages are human-readable and can be edited by people without advanced computer skills.

I find it hard to disagree with the points raised by Hell Freezes Over/SlimVirgin.

I'd also ban minors from editing all but certain areas, and those areas would be altered so a non-minor has to check their edits before they go live, but I know I'm opening a can of worms even suggesting it.

Wikipedia = fake, false, unreliable, unaccountable.

Book = Real, reliable, true, accountable.

I can think of waaay more than three, but these are the biggies for me:

• BLP opt-out. No questions. Also, bring in the 'dead tree' standard and raise the bar on BLP notability.
• Flagged revisions, as per Lar above. Real flagged revisions - not some pathetic, half-assed attempt at appeasement.
• Some sort of RL authentication. Tagging real names to editors should make people think twice about what they're saying.

Agreed.

I like to call your second one "forced flag" in that the flagged version would have to be the default version and the only version available to non-logged-on users.

I've previously suggested a BLP-class editor where real-life details have to be lodged.

Far too sensible Alison, you'd never get a consensus for that. For one thng most of the administrators would be forced to admit to their parents that they'd been wasting their time slapping vandals instead of studying, that's why their grades were so bad.

1. Flagged revisions

2. Some form of review for administrators (I'm not sure what would work best, but ArbCom is not enough)

3. An official standard for gaining consensus (Once again, I'm not sure of a good standard, but we need something)

I agree with the general BLP opt out proviso, and would extend it to bio articles of the recently dead - if a spouse/partner or child wishes for it to be taken down in the aftermath of a death then that desire should be accommodated. A 12 month moratorium should suffice, and afterward any article would be a flagged revision candidate.

Flagged revisions should be immediately applied to BLP's and bio articles relating to persons active in the 20th century (there is far too much political editing of such articles), all "proper" science related articles, all pre 20th Century historical articles, all pre 20th Century art, music and literature articles, and other "dead wood encyclopedic" articles generally.

Wikipedia articles should be tiered, so that the "fundamentals" would not only be under flagged revisions but under regular scrutiny depending on the sensitivity of the subject (political entities, be they individuals, nations, parties, theories, etc. are too prone to idealogical warring irrespective of encyclopedic worth. BLP's have been touched on. Nationalist subjects, while falling under political perview, are also edited emotionally rather than objectively by pro and anti factions), with a secondary tier (the Arts and Sciences?) being flagged revision subjects but with a greater facility to allow wider editing access, and with popular culture remaining open to all access editing.

***

The aim for all of the above is to raise the standard and thus the perceived value of the project, while allowing those subjects which will continue to attract the greater number of participants to remain open to "instant editing".

1) Abandon a risk management policy based on immunity and accept board level responsibility for editorial policies and practices (this will result in a through reform of BLP issues, among others issues, in a manner that will not be undone at the whim of the next person with "three wishes.")

2) Engage in a thorough board development/strategic planning/capacity building process utilizing the tools and accepted practices of the wider non-profit community. Broaden the representation of the board to include the many stakeholders that are shutout by a insular "community"dominated board. Increase the level and presence of employee/agent actors responsible for assuring community compliance with board created standards, practices and policies.

3) Implement rigorous child protection measures informed by experts and practitioners in child protection.



Why would anyone listen to what this vile monster has to say about "reform?"

Because if the Devil told you your zipper was undone, you'd still check?

She's only joining the discussion to manipulate. By the way all (except my own) sets of "fundamental reforms" are basically on the level of improving a junior high school pep club. So much for "fundamental."

Manipulate? There's nothing here to manipulate. It's not like at the end of this we're all going to come to an agreement on the three best changes and then it'll be implemented.

Everyone else took the view that the requirement was the implementing of reform to the existing structure - rather than tearing that down and starting from scratch. I saw PD's starter as "How do you change the existing editorship into making a better encyclopedia", as I suppose did most people.

You haven't read many books, have you?

Most of these have been alluded to already, but here goes:


1. Admins, bureaucrats, and all other potentates serve fixed terms, are known by real-name, and are forbidden to edit articles of any kind during their term as admins;

2. No article revision is presented for public view without a number of appropriately credentialed, real-named reviewers willing to stake their reputations on its veracity and accept legal responsibility for its publishing;

3. All other non-controversial articles carry a giant disclaimer regarding their low likelihood of accuracy and/or high likelihood of bias; except that current-events articles and most BLPs are either forbidden entirely, or banished to some non-Googled, non-public backwater until they can pass test #2.

4. Bonus fourth item -- ban the participation of minors, except possibly as pseudonymous editors in controlled "kiddie" areas such as Pokemon and video games.

This would solve 99% of Wikipedia's problems while still allowing "anyone" to edit. The first would disenfranchise the permanent admin class and strip them of the power to manipulate the text, ridding us of the likes of JayJg, SlimVirgin, and other POV warrior admins. The second would stem the woeful tide of misinformation WP foists upon the world, and introduce readers to the notion of scholarly review. The third would stem the damage done by slanderers and partisans, making WP articles much less attractive targets for everything from simple vandalism to complex astroturfing. In this environment, sockpuppetry, banned users, and all that other fal-di-rah would vanish as a concern, there would be little value in accruing MMPORG points, and the whole "social" cabal aspect of Wikipedia would either dissolve or at least lose much of its pernicious nature.

Any other questions?


They're not bad proposals. SlimVirgin suggests them here either as disinformation or simply to curry favor -- she knows there is absolutely zero chance of their enactment. I would be more sympathetic if she were to actively campaign for #3 on-wiki.

Manipulate as in regain threshold credibility needed to engage in discussion here and on WP to advance her own ends which have nothing to do with anything she says here. But you fools will talk to anyone for the joy of hearing your own voices. Same with FT2 or O'Keeffe.

I think Wikipedia just needs some new slipcovers, maybe something green.

Have you Mr. Holden Caulfield ???

I'm not sure what the first two would be, but the third would be to give myself three more fundamental reforms that I'm allowed to implement.

Seriously, it's hard to imagine such a situation, since Wales doesn't have complete charge in the first place, to be able to give it to me.




Good one. I'm not sure I'd give up immunity, but I'd definitely abandon the policy of non-intervention which supposedly is in place to preserve immunity. Put down "fire Mike Godwin" as the first step of this first step.

I'll adopt that as my step one.

Still not sure about step two. Something about removing all the anti-commercial sentiment from the projects.

And my step three remains as wishing for three more wishes.

Your set certainly has more buzzwords. Way to go.

..that from a guy who runs a junior high pep club.

I would rid all Bio's dead and alive from WP. The site is simply not responsible to handle them.

I would make all admins accountable for De-Rfa processes.

I would kill the mailing lists. I would disable the email function.

I would get rid of CIV and NPA and let adults work shit out like adults.

Come to think of it, I think of WP like I do the Internal Revenue Code. I would take the site down, and completely rebuild every facet of it. In short, the more I think of it, the more I consider WP to be a car that is totaled by an insurance company. Sure it could theoretically be rebuilt, but sometimes the cost is too great. Just let it rot and get another one.

This would be the 'totally destroy Wikipedia' option, then, Law?

Even ones like Henry VIII, Abraham Lincoln, Isaac Newton etc who are all clearly notable? Omitting them would make a meaningless gap.

Indeed, surely nothing can claim to be even a vaguely comprehensive encyclopedia without such biographies. Even among BLPs, some are unquestionably essential as well: Queen Elizabeth II, Bill Clinton, Michael Jordan, and Stephen Hawking leap to mind. I would further point out that at the moment biographies make up around 1/3 of all WP articles, so deleting the lot would shrink Wikipedia considerably (you can decide for yourself whether that is good or bad).

Especially with the comparison to the Internal Revenue Code, I'm not sure what the "completely rebuild" and "get another one" parts are about.

Splitting the admin function from the editorial function is a great idea, but it will surely only lead to more socks and IP edits.

Well, it would decrease the number of ways arbcom can punish you for making edits they don't like.

Sell the damn thing to Rupert Murdoch and retire to Bimini.

If that is not possible, Plan B:

1. Require paid registration -- no IP editing, you need an account. Registration would be renewed annually.

2. Eliminate RfA and RfB and put in a standardized exam, not unlike a civil service exam, where people are judged based on understanding of policy and guidelines and not on irrelevant stuff. The exam would be reviewed by an impartial panel who would only know the applicant by a code number, thus avoiding personality clashes.

3. All new articles would be subject to review prior to going online.

4. All new edits would reviewed on a set cycle -- hourly, twice or thrice or day, whatever. No new editing would be automatic.

5. Eliminate editor Talk Pages. All conversation relating to articles and contents will be on the Talk Page related to the article or to the WikiProject(s) connected to the article.

6. Eliminate AN and AN/I as it exists -- anyone with a complaint or concern would send an e-mail to an admin forum, where the first free admin would review the cases as they come in.

7. Rewrite blocking policy so offenses and matching punishment are clearly spelled out and are not subject to admin whims.

8. Get rid of that damn ugly jigsaw globe logo and get something sexier.

That would be meaningful if there were some correlation between understanding policy and actually following it...

You could say the same thing about any civil servant.

Is the candidate's likelihood of following policy "irrelevant stuff"? I'm sure I could argue either way on that, but I'd just like to make sure we're on the same page.

You'd just get everyone using cheat sheets. I'm a VE for amateur radio and if we didn't make people come into our test sites and take the test in person in front of us as proctors, I guarantee you that people would just take the test online with a copy of the answer key and everyone would always score 100%.

Well at least Kelly proposes some non-trivial changes.

An exam that one cannot fail, and that would be a bad thing?

But what a self-esteem boosting marvel they are.

We already have these in the UK, they're called GCSE' s and A levels.

No, "irrelevant stuff" means the junk that sinks RfA: picking apart someone's personality, age, off-Wiki playtime, perceived maturity and civility, etc. Focus on policy knowledge and understanding, not on whether Mr. X is a big mouthed baby or Mr. Y is three years too young to drink alcohol.




Years ago, when AOL was the big thing in the USA, there was an admin-style ranking for chat rooms called Guides. The Guides had the power to remove someone from a chat for being vulgar or noisy or whatever, and if you got three removals you were banned from the chat rooms.

To become a Guide, you took the test online in front of a Guide. If you answered the questions correctly, I believe you could move on to a probationary period.

I would think that could work with the Admin corps.




So sue me...I'm a horse, damn it, not an Oxford professor.

I'd personally do away with RfA entirely; administrators would be appointed by an elected "administration committee" which itself is elected by secret ballot. I'd also recommend assigning different administrators different duty areas depending on competency and skills, possibly even breaking up the rights bundle accordingly.

I didn't address the content side in my earlier suggestions. Changes to deal with content issues would necessarily include:

• Multiple parallel articles on the same topic. NPOV is fundamentally unworkable; the myth of "one truth, one article" is one of Jimmy's most toxicly stupid juvenile fantasies.
• Some sort of prepublication review, at least on "controversial" topics including all biographies of living or recently deceased individuals. No article content edit sees the light of day without at least two sets of eyes on it, and at least one of those sets of eyes will be identified by a verified real name.
• Named, identified, and verified subject-matter experts responsible for first-order content dispute resolution within those topic areas.

Haha. Well, I would say that the IRC would have to be rebuilt in a comprehensible way. I'm not sure a country does well when no taxes are collected.

@PD - I know where you are going with this I'd only destroy it with permission, as I assume is part of this hypothetical. I get your point and it is well-taken.

I think the idea that a statement is either true or false predates Wikipedia. This suggestion doesn't appeal.

Can you fill in the less-savvy members of the community on Petey's point, please?