Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll

The following is a poll about the establishment of an Editorial Council.

Support

 * Support as drafter. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * About damn time. --harej 04:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it has a possibility to work, may need a few tweaks here and there but what proposal doesn't? Tiptoety  talk 05:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, this seems to be a good way to solve conduct disputes which is definitely necessary --Novil Ariandis (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Overall I think this will greatly improve the handling of contentious issues. In response to Orderinchaos' comments, perhaps the Council should have some way to contact well-known experts in the field under discussion, but this can be decided as we go along. --Zvika (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A fair idea, if enough members involved. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 18:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Support concept but not as currently written

 * Oppose going forward without discussion and opportunity for refinement of proposal. Too early for me to say I support it; too many unanswered questions and too much likely flux.  I'll strike this entry when the situation becomes clearer.  Until then, I think rushing into things would be bad. •  I think the idea has some merit, and is certainly worth discussing.  But I'm not sure if the current proposal is the right implementation of the concept.  Maybe the proposal just needs clarification, or maybe the idea should be rolled into existing mechanisms.  Or maybe I'm just easily confused.  ;-)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support concept. For now the biggest concern, as noted below, is with the composition. I imagine a much more flexible membership, appointed* on a case-by-case basis would work better. I don't think the Foundation or Jimmy Wales should be involved. --maclean 05:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support concept, but not the proposed composition or selection method. However, it seems pointless to spend time discussing these details, when the snowball is already melting.  If there seems to be more interest in this idea at some point in the future, then a new discussion can be opened regarding the number of members, method of election/appointment, maybe some limitation on the number of admins on the committee, term limits, etc.  6SJ7 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support proposal but I think all members should be elected by the community. Maybe start with 3 tranches of 3 so elections co-incide? -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Concept of a committee making bounding content decisions, but I think its authority should be divided into fields od study, also it needs to use real-life experts with known identity and credentials. I think Foundation is the correct place to make such decision Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose In my view, ruling on content is an inherently dangerous path to go, especially when one is in effect giving seven people with no expert knowledge control of contentious areas. In addition, does not allow for the fact that in some cases two answers are equally right (especially in social science areas) and hence ruling one way or the other is effectively intellectual or cultural discrimination against the "losers" in the process, who will simply turn to conduct issues to resolve their grievances in the absence of sympathy from such a body. Orderinchaos 08:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Who watches the watchers? Stifle (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who watches ArbCom? I don't see you complaining about that. --harej 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimbo and the Foundation if necessary; ArbCom members can get voted out as well. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I appreciate the reasoning for this, but as Orderinchaos says, it's a horrendous idea to give editorial control to people who know nothing about the given topic at hand. You can't resolve these things by reading three pages of a book; you need to actually know what you're talking about. And as much as I'd love to see some sort of editorial oversight, this just isn't the right way of going about it. Rebecca (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not have the EdCo succumb to lazy research! This is serious business! --harej 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. To be able to resolve a content dispute they will need to be experts in the field. Since they will not (they can not be experts in everything) they will likely produce a nonsensical decision. As to academia sources I want to make two observations:
 * 1. To read such sources some background in the field is necessary;
 * 2. Sometimes (especially in the social sciences) academia is as polarized as wikipedia.


 * Ruslik (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Make these experts appear out of thin air. Then we can use those. In the meantime, we have this. Also, EdCo should consider expert testimony. And if academia is as polarized as Wikipedia, this will be determinable, and polarity will be reached as a conclusion. Gee, you'd think we were electing a council of monkeys instead of intelligent humans. --harej 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - don't agree with the concept of binding decisions on content. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose As noted by other editors, a panel of non-experts probably isn't going to be well placed to solve content dispute issues. Requests for comment, etc, and involving the relevant Wikiproject(s) are a better way of getting neutral and expert eyes on articles. Also, in my experiance it's rare for there to be a serious content dispute which doesn't involve editor misconduct (eg, as level-headed editors are almost always able to solve disagreements themselves through polite discussion and asking for external views) so a toothless body wouldn't serve much purpose. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the decisions are binding, that is in direct conflict with WP:Consensus, since if there is consensus then the council decision would not be needed, and if there is not, it can't be manufactured by a small elected group. Additionally, if the results are binding, further process would be needed for appeal in case of new information or change in consensus. Alternately, if the decisions are not binding, then the process won't be helpful beyond what Mediation already can do, as a consensus-based process. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Concentrating broad power over content in the hands of a small group of people is a recipe for disaster. Wikipedia's strength is that a large number of people deal with content issues, and there is, often, a certain wisdom in the collective opinions of many people.  This council entirely circumvents that and, in fact, totally undercuts the core concept of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit, as long as you write what the Editorial Council tells you you can write . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 09:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the EdCo insists on ruling autocratically and shutting itself off from the community. I would see to it that the EdCo handles no more situations than the ones that can't resolve themselves. --harej 11:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I appreciate the effort that went into this proposal, and agree with many of the concerns raised. However, this proposal goes directly against WP's founding principles. By replacing the council as the arbiter of last resort, instead of WP:CONSENSUS as it is now, the nature of WP would be drastically altered in unpredictable and likely unhealthy ways. Sorry, but I think the authors should go back and figure out a way to keep consensus as the final say in content issues. Ronnotel (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't replace consensus, it's invoked when there is no consensus. --harej 10:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once there is consensus, and it's backed in editorial policy, then the EdCo's word is irrelevant. --harej 11:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say it was replacing WP:CONSENSUS in general, just as the final arbiter for content disputes. And I think that is the crux of my objection. WP:CONSENSUS works as well as it does because all parties know that the only truly effective way to influence content is to make good faith arguments that are supported by reliable sources. If this policy were adopted, I believe it would substantially reduce the motivation to participate in WP:CONSENSUS. Instead, arguments not be made in good faith but instead would be crafted to appeal to some overarching jury, very like the adversarial system we see in the U.S. justice system. By degrading the effectiveness of WP:CONSENSUS, I believe we would put the entire project at risk. Ronnotel (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think this proposal was put together with the best of intentions, so even though it has exactly a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere, it deserves a serious reply.  You look around and see pages with constant arguments, eternal NPOV tags, and continually flip-flopping language, and you think there must be a better way.  Unfortunately, if there is a better way, this proposal isn't it.  You see, part of Wikipedia's charm is that if you don't like what someone says, you can change it, and if others disagree, you can argue about it.  Our vast hordes of editors, the lifeblood of the Wikipedia project, are here because they can participate as equals.  And yes, most of their energy is wasted arguing with each other, but if we had a committee to stamp out the arguments then that energy wouldn't be here in the first place.  That's why we're stuck with the wiki process, and with trying to build consensus, even in the cases where things are very difficult.  Wikipedia is Wikipedia because those processes are among the cornerstone of the project.  -- SCZenz (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for all the above reasons and more. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for all teh reasons above and for the fact that there isn't a problem here. The problem is quite simple.  Consensus will solve all issues.  Editors who aren't engaged in reaching consensus should be dealt with through dispute resolution. We need to sharpen our mediation and arbitration methods.  Currently our processes allow situations to deadlock because editors refuse to budge from a position. Where we deadlock we should instead be seeking common ground. Hiding T 10:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Consensus can change. - jc37 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the strength of Wikipedia is that the community resolves content issues through consensus not through an arbitrary editorial authority.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per SilkTork. Moreschi (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose the whole idea, per the many good objections raised above. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I also don't like a board making broad content rulings, especially since consensus can change. Large-scale RFCs (probably linked to from WP:CENT) would be a much better solution. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - too beaurocratic and not allowing enough for consensus to change.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - depromotes the idea of consensus building, encourages factionalism and content warring. Who watches the watchers indeed?  Too open to abuse.  So many other problems. Wily D  13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - largely superfluous and just compounds the bureaucratic structure we have already been having problems with. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - One of the best things about Wikipedia is our surprisingly neutral and balanced coverage of contentious topics. We already have all sorts of dispute resolution procedures.  This is just taking something Wikipedia already does very well with and adding an unnecessary clump of beaurocracy. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral. I think it desirable to make use of the existing formal mediation process more, or perhaps the Mediation Committee should accept more cases.  See also my full comment for ideas on how the mediation process might be modified. Bwrs (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Bwrs (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)