User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia is broken and failing

SPQW
This is interesting, though I have a different take on the matter that I'll post here later, if you don't mind, when I get a chance. One thing struck me, and made me smile, as I skimmed through this though. Slapping up a photo of the US Senate as an example of "what we need more of" will probably make a lot of folks, regardless of homeland or political persuasion, chuckle. The American Senate is a rather dysfunctional (not to much undemocratic&mdash;both in terms of its functioning and the manner in which its members end up there, despite protestations to the contrary in high school civics classes) institution. I'd argue that it's hardly a model for good governance. Probably you didn't intend it that way but, you know, just sayin'. :-)

I'd propose an alternative photo of a smooth-functioning, highly democratic institution that could serve as a model for good governance here on Wikipedia, however I cannot think of any such body offhand. Anyhow I'll try to follow up with some more serious thoughts here later since I'd like to engage with the argument you are making. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically, the image is of the Capitol building and not the Senate specifically. While the United States Congress may not be the Platonic ideal of democratic governance, it does manage to govern a superpower and spend trillions of dollars a year without melting the planet. I'm pretty sure that if the US tried to implement Wikipedia-style management, Earth would be dribbling goo in short order. Nathan  T 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There's really only one way out
I wrote this on my user page the other day, and I think it fits here: Because there is no community, and because the consensus model of site administration is irreparably broken, either the Foundation will take control of en.wikipedia by the end of 2010, or will direct the Arbitration Committee to do so. I expect the Foundation's hand will most likely be forced by those two words I'm not allowed to say because one can get banned for it or a public-relations disaster several orders of magnitude larger than Siegenthaler.

(EDIT: would have helped had I signed this originally, right?) - Robster2001 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good essay
Good essay. I think you've nailed it. Your ideas about elected policy and content committees are right on. Cla68 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I second that Cla68! This is one of the best essays on Wiki-governance I have ever read! Cheers Root, and rooting Cheers!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD
I think the problem with the ACPD is not that it exists, it's that there is no community input into the membership. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, I still think the fact that the ACPD has no incontestable claim of legitimacy is its greatest weakness. Rootology explains the problem quite simply: Wikipedia has no functioning leader, no one of authority. Who is there who can appoint a membership for the ACPD which everyone would accept, or at least tolerate? Once upon a time it might be Jimmy Wales, but then he started to curtail his activities with Wikipedia & now is clearly out of touch with the community; except as a symbol of the project, & his role in picking members of the ArbCom, he is irrelevant to what happens here. ArbCom can't do it: their writ is simply to be the final step in resolving disputes, no more & no less; that quip from Wehwalt about the pep squad picking the student government is very accurate -- even if they picked someone who wasn't one of the "cool kids", no one would take their selection any more seriously than if the chess club or the school's chapter of Junior Achievement made the selection. The various WikiProjects? A few are functioning well, but most are barely able to handle even keeping their articles free of spam & vandalism, let alone improving content, & their own writs run no further than their topic areas. (Let the Military history & Chemistry WikiProjects history pick the membership of ACPD? Does anyone think that would work better?)


 * But the shadow of Jimmy Wales over the English Wikipedia effectively keeps anyone else from assuming leadership. Take Durova, for example: agree or disagree with her, the woman has devoted so much energy & time to making some things work on Wikipedia (mostly concerning images, but often beyond that) that I wonder where she finds the time to work a job & support herself. Without Wales around, she would be a strong contender for the leadership position, if not in it. Yet because there is no way for her to acquire some kind of recognized authority here, she remains just another volunteer -- with as much authority as a newbie who makes a few controversial edits. Or me.


 * As for the "decision by consensus" model, I think it can work with a few tweaks. (One important one would be to publicize proposed declarations of consensus somewhere so all interested parties are given a chance to participate.) However, getting there won't happen until someone is allowed to lead us there. -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Echoes
I am reminded of a quotation:

"We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it."

"That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do."

"Then they should be made to."

-- Powers T 14:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Wikipedia's system
Hebrew Wikipedia has a parliament voting system for policy changes. (Some changes it has enacted: English interwikis go above all other language interwikis, and AFD debates must be closed after exactly seven days, so late votes don't count.) After preliminary discussion, an admin opens debate on the parliament page, which is admin-protected so that any old user can't put a proposal there without prior discussion. Only active users (90 edits in the last three months) may vote. The Hebrew community is smaller and more insular, but as a governance system it works just fine, and actually does manage to effect change with anything that garners a 2/3 majority in most cases, or a plurality for "either/or" propositions, as I recall from 2008. Hebrew Wikipedia has no ArbCom, and has a community process for revoking the rights of inactive or misbehaving admins. It's not a perfect system, but it's better IMO than English Wikipedia's system, and should be considered in a discussion of alternative governance models. Chutznik (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's the thing, it works with your language edition. The English Wikipedia is larger by multiple orders of magnitude, and so it's much harder to organize people. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 03:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be miles ahead of what we have now. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Slippery slope
The nature of slippery slopes is one which tends to prevent readers from disputing any single point without slipping back to the bottom and disputing the whole package. Well, I cannot believe that the solution is giving individuals more power. If a problem exists it is not the people in charge, but the bull-headed veteran editor who wields guideline and policy like one of the four horsemen. Editors, not leaders, constantly bite newbies and make it a point to tell them about it using templates clearly advertising the (minor) failure of the recipient. It is no wonder that their only contributions, typically, are the ones being dragged through AFD a week after they summarily retired.

I have to give it to you that the system of consensus can be easily derailed, but I was disappointed to see that you mention the swiss policies which allow this behavior yet do not mention policy reform in your solution. Rather, the answer seems to be a new group of leaders to help interpret the policies. Remember, the leaders didn't vote on these guidelines, editors did. I'd bet half of the brokenness you are calling attention to can be fixed without giving a single person more power, instead go nominate WP:IAR for WP:MFD.

It reads as if you are throwing your arms up in defeat because the bureaucracy is not growing fast enough to keep up with the community. Well I am a selfish, one-man WikiSloth who edits only for my own pleasure, and in my personal version of a drama article I would be leaving in a huff because of bureaucracy.

P.S. I would totally support your consensus change. ZabMilenko How am I driving? 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
All too often, it seems people are willing to talk about "Wikipedia" as though it were one product or community, when i believe the reality is that it's a vast interlocking collection of products of a vast interlocking collection of communities. And some of those communities are much healthier than others.

In the areas of Wikipedia I work on, I have found many of the institutions you criticize in your essay to be very effective. Not always, but for most of the day-to-day work that produces high quality content and draws in large numbers of contributors. But the situation you describe does not match my experience of the project.

Bold leadership happens all the time on more local levels that don't attract so much attention; and in the areas where it does, strong editing communities thrive. I try to focus my own energy on making more of that happen, and for the most part leave the dysfunctional areas of the project alone. I have a great deal of experience around here, but unlike you, I feel powerless to assess what the predominant theme is; while I can see how it's tempting to focus on the most widely publicized issues in forming a conclusion, I believe that gives you a pretty biased sample.

So, a thought for you: I think your essay would be much more compelling if you were to cite specific examples that support your conclusions, and make the case that your examples are "more typical" than the kind I might cite to show the opposite. -Pete (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename
Hi Rootology. Sorry to see that's come to this. Per your recent CHU request, could you just clarify (either there, here or to me directly) why you need to change your username because you're resigning at meta? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is true
If Wikipedia is really broken and failing, then heck, I'll go down with the ship. Abce2 | If you would   like to make a call..  04:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too! We're doomed! Sob! ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of a song. Abce2 | If you would   like to make a call..  18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What song? ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably this song.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But of course! Now this evening is saved at least! ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 21:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo has no authority
I disagree when you said that Jimbo had no authority. Take, for instance, the Wikiversity incident (see this signpost article for more information). Jimbo, after hearing about the incident, immediately deleted the page, indeffed a user, desysopped another, and considered the deletion of Wikiversity. Surely he has some authority over the projects? — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  04:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He certainly has (had?) the authority to ban users. See List of banned users. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He has the legal and technical authority, but if he no longer gets involved in the details of the day to day issues nor the mechanisms of the project, it is essentially the same thing as having no authority. He is a figurehead. A symbol of WPs origins, but is apparently (to me) not longer concerned with where the content is going. Who ultimately runs the on/off switches is not important if they are asleep at the switch. Njsustain (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He is still a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation, one of our thousands of community members and also one of the 500 or so admins on EN wiki. So when it comes to authority he is very much part of the process. But the process has developed, it is not some arbitrary North Korean style system where the GodKing can make arbitrary decisions, and of course that is a good thing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better
The content of your user page sums up Wikipedia as a whole better than anything I've ever heard. You are dead on. I do wish you would reconsider your retirement. This site needs more people like you. Wikipedia will always be the way you describe on your user page, and will probably even get worse, unless people like you are willing to stand and fight.Mk5384 (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

good point
Secondplanet (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sensa-yuma
For the record, I'm a minor editor. By nature, I'm reactive, pugnacious, potentially violent, and periodically confrontational. Some of the rules of Wikipedia run up against my essential nature, and force me to be civil when I'd rather be self-indulgent So it's more than a bit ironic for me to say that this page is a quart low on Sense of Humor. It's six years since the main body of the User Page was written--and Wikipedia is still an excellent source of information. It's not perfect, and it will never be the equivalent of the the Encyclopedia Britannica in its heyday. Readers need to read carefully and pay close attention to the reference list when evaluating the veracity and utility of any article. Yes there are cabals of editors who control articles and categories of articles and poison the atmosphere around some of them. But Wikipedia was designed to be structurally loose and structurally non-authoritarian, so islands of less than perfection are inevitable. "While bankers' nieces seek perfection, expecting all the gifts that wise men bring." If enough Wikipedia editors continue to do their tasks in good faith, it will "muddle through" (as the Brits say) at the least of it. Regards Tapered (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits/reverts/edits
Keeping in mind WP:NOBAN, in my opinion it is best to leave this userpage-essay in its original state and not to redact its content. Shearonink (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Er, what? Why? People can improve others' articles, can't they? Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Plus, I spent time editing that page. It wasn't all done in a second. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And WP:NOBAN says "in general", and I was not prohibited to edit by the user himself, User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired has not edited since 2010.
 * Per their User talk page, GANAR has completely retired from Wikipedia editing, so it is unclear to me how the user can be asked any questions. WP:NOBAN does say "in general" and then goes on to say "it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful [emphasis mine].  Adding this "nutshell" template is not a minor edit, it substantially alters the user page in question and per the reversions of the added content it seems evident that other editors are not regarding it as helpful.
 * The page in question, User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia is broken and failing has been rendered as a WP:USERPAGE. It has not been published out into the main Wikipedia space, it is a WP:USERPAGE. The essay template was placed on the user page by another editor in January 2011 even though GANAR had added the Retired template to this talk page in July 2009 & last editing  Wikipedia in March 2010.  (In my opinion, even the essay template should not be there so, keeping WP:BRD in mind, I have just removed it.)  As you are aware, editors are free to delete warnings/notices on their own user talk, but this particular editor has clearly indicated that they are no longer editing Wikipedia.  This content should be left as is.
 * Your added "nutshell" content has been reverted by three other editors, I think the consensus is clear to leave GANAR's user page alone. Shearonink (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thought it was an essay — oops! Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 22:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)