In practice oligarchy is crude dim wits in charge. Examples are legion. That a carefully selected elite can do things well is not at issue. But an "elected" oligarchy is not that.
We have defined and used consensus but have mixed results. Making needed policy changes is an extremely difficult exercise in practical politics. And application of "consensus" to content of an article with a couple of editors with an interest to advance is nearly hopeless. We probably need to get a lot better at it than we are if we are going to use it. Fred > Here's a question, Steve: what social problems have been solved by > anarchy? > If we toss out "oligarchy", decide "voting is evil", and only allow most > decisions to proceed on some ill-defined notion of consensus, that's what > is left. > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Steven Walling > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An >> > arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members >> > funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a >> long >> > way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when >> > their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin >> access), >> > others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake. >> > >> >> Right! Because we all know the solution to social problems is >> oligarchy. >> >> Steven >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
