User:NeoFreak/Essays/Process

I will explain here why the wiki process is broken and must be fixed if the integrity of wikipeda is going to be saved.

There are three ways in which decisions involving more than two people are made on Wikipedia: 1.) Jimbo Wales makes a final decision, 2.) Bureaucrats and occasionally Administrators reach a decision with a "consensus" among themselves, 3.) The present editors' form their own "consensus" and simply "out edit" the minority parties.

One would think that a single editor correctly citing policy in a black and white manner would usually have the power to make a decision but this is not the case. When a dispute erupts sooner or later others will enter the debate and then form a "consensus" on whether or not the policy is being interpreted the correct way. On occasion a consensus will form that is contrary to a policy and then WP:IAR will be cited or the policy simply ignored. While all wikipedians are supposed to be the custodians of policy only Admins have the power to unilaterally enforce policy with binding actions.

What this means is that without direct Administrator action to make a binding decision mob rule will prevail in any situation. So, the "democratic process" of wikipedia must be overseen by people that are familiar with the policies and workings of wikipedia that are able to make "anti-democratic" decisions; this person is the Administator. The problem? Administrators are appointed (and retained) by the same democratic process that they must often curb. Regardless of what the status of Adminstrator should be or what it is intended to be, the fact is that being an Admin is a mark of standing and power within the wikipedia community. The Admin that wants to keep his or her job and avoid being constantly besieged with complaints will most often simply concur with the majority of the people that have the power to grant and take away his position or just abstain from the situation all together. This is, after all, what any smart elected politician will do.

Most arenas of wikipedia process are democratic and open to the general editing public, anyone that can click "edit" and "save page" can get in on forming wikipedia. Of course things like WP:AfD are not supposed to be democratic but instead a place where articles can be discussed and a consensus on the applicability of all policy can be reached. Too bad that the people most often closing AfDs are the Administrators that are either incompetent, having been elected in a popularity contest, or are afraid to buck the majority and make a correct "policy decision". You see often the people that participate in a deletion discussion are the people most interested in the subject article, they've worked on it or enjoy the article's subject, they might even be part of the group in which the article discusses. These people will petition to have the article kept regardless of the policy on the matter because they have a conflict of interest. The "closing" Administrator often obliges this and will concur with the biased group or simply declare the safer "no consensus" which is the exact same as simply saying "Keep".

This abuse of the system is aggravated by special interest groups called Wikiprojects. A group of editors interested in a subject will often get together and form one of these groups, effectively creating a centralized and often vigilant voting block. Anytime an article that might or might not be appropriate for inclusion into wikipedia is sent to AfD a patrolling member of the Wikiproject will make a notice of the fact to his comrades at the Wikiproject and they will flood the discussion with a lockstep objection. Pity the Admin that gathers the wrath of one of these groups of editors, he might find his "competency" challenged. This threat also extends to any affiliated group of editors that network their voting power together, not just Wikiprojects. The danger is only aggravated by interlopers. Often seen is "subculture" article that fails the policy for inclusion but ahs an active and vigilant internet following. Scores of cut and dry decisions are clouded by dozens of members of a subculture or other interest group flooding AfD with outrage after being notified by a wikipedian that "they" are "under attack" at wikipedia. Again the elected Administrator often folds under this mob pressure to ignore policy.