User:Casliber/Crossroads

(Originally posted at User:Casliber/ACE2012 in late 2012. This is the evolution of ideas since then.)

After around two and half years on the committee and watching article development in various areas around the 'pedia (I've spent time at FAC, GAN and DYK as well as resurrecting the Core Contest and the Stub Contest), I'm jotting some thoughts about what I perceive our priorities are with respect to wikipedia as a whole and its evolution over the next few years.

Content
I see wikipedia at a crossroads. The novelty of being newfangled is wearing off as evidenced by dropoff in new editors. I think the increasing rigour of editing rules has a role in this but this is essential in the evolution of the 'pedia. In its place, wikipedia is traversing a grey area where the goal is status as an Established and Reliable online Encyclopedia. We are making progress here but we are vulnerable. As our status (and google rankings) are cemented, we become more vulnerable to coordinated attempts to subvert or warp content. This is happening, as evidenced by issues with paid editing.


 * The Featured (and Good) content processes have been critical in improving content across wikipedia. These are critical in enlarging a portfolio of quality material.


 * DYK and ITN are other areas that encourage (a) collaborative editing and (b) extra improving of articles.


 * Ensuring that core, popular (high pageview) and BLP content are of reasonable quality are priorities. All of these have mechanisms in place to some degree. I am not as fussed about the quality of masses of marginal articles. The sheer size of Wikipedia means that these articles will languish, however as one of Wikipedia's main drawcards is Wikipedia's size and coverage, any drastic change to size/comprehensiveness (by, say, ramping up notability hugely) would be catastrophic.

Dispute resolution
Our RfC process is in need of an overhaul. Unless there is a clear consensus, or unless someone has really structured an RfC properly (which generally means ignoring or compromising its comment/support/no oppose structure which leaves folks all talking past each other), it is little more than a stumble between a dispute and Arbitration.

As an aside, Arbitration Enforcement is a challenging area in need of more eyes - it was tough and time-consuming. more hands on deck are needed here.

Arbitration
A well- or poorly-functioning arbitration committee impacts significantly on morale and content.

With our policies on anonymity and how it impacts on discussion of advocacy and paid editing, we have no choice but to analyse editing behaviour including content on its own merits. How editors add content is such a major component of protracted disputes.

What this means is this - an arbitration committee which restricts itself solely to non-content related judgements (e.g. edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry) leaves wikipedia wide open to coordinated gaming by entities seeking to influence content. we are profoundly compromised in our ability to deal with this.

What I tried to do as an arbitrator is to at least examine content-related editing behaviour by antagonists in a dispute. Note that this is not ruling on content but at least attempting to examine whether editors were following policies on Reliable Sourcing, Undue Weight, original Research and Synthesis, and actually supporting edits with sources which say what the edits say.

Finally, many of these also need planning and structure when referred back to the community - big time, with not many folks interested in pursuing this. More hands and eyes needed in these when they come up.

What the WMF can do
Consider the two parts - (a) the content, and (b) the community - and come up with ways of improving the quality of the former and the environment of the latter - as well as (c) outreach (GLAM etc.).


 * Be aware that radical shifting of some quality or component risks catastrophe (e.g. a radical shift in privacy/outing could really destabilise things. Ditto a radical shift in notability and hence article pruning or any other suggestion of splitting the English Wikipedia)