Wikipedia talk:Policy council

message: I don't understand what this is trying to solve. - brenneman {L} 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having been involved in a couple of disputes where a few die-hard adherents of different interpretations of policy manage to go round and round for months and months, I think I do understand what problem this is trying to solve.  Written policy lags behind actual practice, and it contradicts itself, and it has huge gaps in it.  None of this makes a good impression on new users.  We could stand to be much better documented, and creating a council of people to make that happen seems like a good idea to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the fact that you might categorize me as one of those die-hard adherents, I can see the possibilities. :-) If policy is going to be written by a small group, it would be better for it to be done by an elected board than by those few editors who have the motivation and fortitude to show up on a regular basis for the "discussions". Plus, it would leave me free to edit articles. -- Donald Albury 00:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy is already written by a small (somewhat fluctuating) group.  However, it's also written in a very disorganized way, which leads to confusing and inconsistent policy documents.  Our current corpus of policy documents badly need to be rewritten -- not to change policy, but instead to make them more accurately report on what current practice is.  Kelly Martin (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that small group is self-selected. Those of us who self-select to wrassle over the wording of policies do so for a variety of motives. I've alluded to my motives on my talk page, but I won't get into that here. I think that it is unhealthy for Wikipedia to have long drawn-out arguments on policy talk pages over what the 'true' consensus of Wikipedia is on an issue, especially with such a small number of participants in the discussion. The hot issue with your proposal will be that it is a step away from open participation in writing policies. Even so, I think it is worth developing the idea. -- Donald Albury 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution in search of a problem 

message: Do you want help in developping this.  User:SynergeticMaggot pointed me here  since it is similar to one I wanted to propose.
KV(Talk) 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love this proposal 

message: Err, how can this be both a proposed policy, and a page that only Kelly can edit?  I don't get it.  Friday (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: Would "by Jimmy Wales" forever? Surely by "the board of the Wikimedia Foundation" or some other appointment-by-title would be preferable. Plus "shall have authority over policy" would require both acceptance by the WMF (indeed could a 'policy council' override a Board decision? I doubt it) and acceptance by a supermajority of editors (esp. the 'wikilaywer' types) which would also be difficult to ensure. But otherwise ... --AlisonW 15:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redrafted that section (and reinstated this as "proposed policy" because it is proposed policy; some people are just plain silly). Kelly Martin (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How is this "out of the community airwaves"?  If it should be announced somewhere in particular, just announce it there.  I don't get it. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eek! 

message: Our current approach to policy is problematic and allows too many editors to edit policy pages. Many of those editors are inexperienced or are attempting to edit policy to fit their own ends. However, this policy will create the exact opposite problem and many others besides. Here are 6(in no particular order) of the many problems associated with this proposed policy. First, while it might make sense to limit edits to the policy pages only to established editors or to admins or something similar, this policy would entrench and rigidify policy when policies need to be if anything flexible and change easily as circumstances change. Second, reducing policy making to a small group would be almost tantamount to saying that the Wiki process has failed and having a third of these councillors controlled by the Board is simply ridiculous. That amounts to saying that we aren't able to handle our own issues and need Board intervention for every policy matter.he Board's job is to provide general oversight of all of Wikimedia, not get involved in deciding the policies of each little Wiki. Fourth this violates two different aspects of WP:NOT which says that Wikipedia is not a democracy(or in this case a pseudo-representative democracy) or a bureaucracy.  Fifth, this will undermine the ArbCom. Sixth, this amounts to formally solidifying a highly non-transparent process which occurs off Wiki as a major aspect of our policy-making. JoshuaZ 02:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal as it currently stands does not in fact limit policy-making to a small group. (Though I *guess* it might limit the actual editing of the policy pages to said group.) If those who are opposed to this proposal (this probably includes me) would please study it a bit more carefully before hurling stones at it, or ask questions regarding it if it is too cryptic to be understood, the debate here would probably be more fruitful. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I am aware of that it doesn't by the letter do that. However it seems clear it would in practice. In any event the other objections stand independently of that matter. JoshuaZ 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry if that came off as too harsh; I guess you mean that the absolute power to control what the policy pages say would naturally tend to corrupt any group that held it into taking over complete control of policy. Maybe, yeah. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I agree with all that. The travel stipend is a real Lulu. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very discouraging development. Creating such a cabal without seeking community feedback and input into the process? What message does this send? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is unacceptable 

message: if this has done anything, it has been to make people think about the level of oversight that we wish wikipedia to have. I actually wrote a personal essay on a very similar subject earlier today (however it has been kept private due to the hassle such material can cause). On matters of oversight, there are two distinct areas - that of editorial content and of inter-editor interaction. In my opinion, coming from a background as a professional forum moderator and RL event organiser, wikipedia could do with such measures, especially with respect to civility to others.
With regards to the need for this idea, I'm surprised that the first action that those who argue that the concept is baseless was not to visit the talk pages of such topics as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. These are in termoil, to be honest, and some oversight would certainly help.
I am a believer in ensuring that skilled contribution is made to wikipedia. Some of the proposed panel should really be ensured to be 'experts' in some manner or another, in this case refering to the accurate copywriting of encyclopedic content, referencing, ensuring no undue weight is given, etc. I'm not entirely sure I would agree to a council half placed by a seperate elected body (heh, house of lords, anyone?). I'm also a believer that as mass 'voting' in position elections becomes just that, voting, we should be using proportional representation (namely, first choice, second, etc, RON - Single Transferable Vote). In many respects this would aid in a feeling of consensus, as everybody will ultimately get a real level of input on the result.
Like I said, well done for making people think :) LinaMishima 03:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm both a critic of this proposed policy and a steady participant at Talk:NPOV since last year in defending that policy, in fact, probably as much if not more than anyone else in this discussion. And I don't think a policy along these lines is the solution. FeloniousMonk 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would argue that no one that has spent some time lately monitoring WP core policy pages, could say that we need some discipline. That is not disputed. But to assert that what is needed is something along the lines of Kelly's proposal, without exploring other options more aligned with the spirit of the community, is in my view, not a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good start, makes people think 

message: Hi Kelly. I'm sorry, and rather surprised, that this policy proposal has received so must adverse attention for being in your userspace. However, the less said about that, the better.
I really wanted to ask you about how the Policy Council would fit into the Wikipedia hierarchy. On the policy page, you say that "The Arbitration Committee, administrators, and all editors are expected to give due consideration to the decisions of the policy council.". I think that this is kind of ambiguous. In the result of a disagreement between the Policy Council and ArbCom, whose decision would be final? I know that is a hypothetical situation, but I think the policy would be better with some clarification. 
Other than that, I think that the policy is a very interesting idea, and I look forward to discussing it further. Thε Halo Θ 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the ArbCom should have the final say when it comes to disputes about the interpretation of policies. The ArbCom should not make, change or amend policies (no "case law") and the Policy Council should not comment in disputes. Separation of powers. --Ligulem 13:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. Separation of powers is the exact right way to put it. Thε Halo Θ 13:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is deliberately ambiguous.  The PC is intended as an advisory body and has no formal power to do anything.  There is no "Wikipedia hierarchy" for it to fit into, so I really can't address that question.  In the event of a disagreement between the ArbCom and the PC, I would expect the two of them to have a nice long talk about it and sort it out.  In every case, the community has the final decision; if both the PC and the ArbCom start running around on crack, everyone else would be expected to simply ignore them.  Kelly Martin (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we require that ArbCom members shouldn't be members of the PC (no double jobs)? --Ligulem 17:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see that as necessary.  But I am perhaps less paranoid about concentration of power on Wikipedia than some.  I doubt that many people would have enough time to serve on both, in any case.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few questions. 

message: Either move your proposal to the Wikipedia namespace, or delete the category :Category:Wikipedia proposals. One or the other. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any good reason for this demand, and from the discussion I've seen I don't think you have a consensus to mandate it, either.  Given that your demand lacks both consensus and any obvious reason in common sense, I am therefore inclined to deny it.  Kelly Martin (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point in it, either, but Joshua Z moved this talk page to Wikipedia:Policy council, so I went ahead and moved it to Wikipedia talk:Policy council, and moved the actual policy proposal to Wikipedia:Policy council.  I assume that's what JZ meant. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Now we can put that aside and focus on the proposal instead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namespace 

message: Some questions from discussions above:
# What is the rationale behind this proposal?
# Why is there a request for this group to meet and for that to be financed?
# What is the definition of "active editor"?
# What is the rationale and/or benefit or point of the five appointed/10 elected structure.
# What is the process by which this proposed council would work?
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The council shall decide the rules under which it operates, including but not limited to fixing quorum, determining the exact place, time, and method of meetings, and the rules under which meetings shall proceed. The council may appoint a person not a member of the council to mediate at or preside over its meetings, at its discretion.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I'm not an editor with tens of thousands of edits, but I have been hanging around editing off of dynamic IPs here and there for a while. 
I feel this proposed policy is both unnecessary and foes against the spirit of WP - I'm not saying that we have free speech or a democracy; merely that one of the main things that attracts people here is a sense of community and the idea that users can work together to actually achieve something - including making policy. Recently, with the introduction of OFFICE (probably necessary) and oversight (very worrying), I've noticed a greater and greater centralisation of power. This seems to be further manifesting itself in increasingly worrying numbers of arbitrary decisions by admins and bureaucrats. If this is what people want from wikipedia, that's fine. However, large numbers of editors will be driven away if the trend continues - and obviously the quality of the project will suffer.
We should remember that this isn't an internet forum or kingdom or some other battleground of power, it's an encyclopedia looking to provide content. It seems that concentrating on aspects of policy will serve to increase instances wikilawyering rather than diminish them. 
I'm not knocking authority for the sake of it - just trying to push forward the view that many people are upset at the way authority is being used on the English Wikipedia. Any further council, body, group, clerk, board, etc, etc is merely bound to increase this feeling, so I must protest against this proposed policy in the strongest possible terms.
--No more bongos 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralisation of power 

message: I think Kelly's proposal is worth discussing. Policies need to be stable. Sudden veers back and forth in what appears on policy pages is just plain bad for Wikipedia. This does not mean that policies are set in stone, but they ought to be set in very thick mud. Policy pages should change slowly, and only when it is obvious that consensus has changed. The current system of allowing anyone to make any change they want on the policy pages leads to revert wars, to protection of pages that often are in a state that is not supported by consensus, and to long and tiresome arguments on talk pages. I've dropped out of the goings-on the last few days at WP:V, WP:NOR and others because I found I no longer had time to actually contribute content to WP. 
So, let's discuss what is needed to reduce the chaos that now surrounds the policy pages. Personally, I will support just about anything that will reduce the current practice of editors trying to modify policies to fit their private agendas. So, restrict editing of policies (and maybe guidelines) to 'experienced' users, or admins, or bureaucrats, or a 'Policy Council'? Personally, I don't think I have any problem with giving up my 'right' to edit policies. So far I haven't seen any need to change existing policies, and have edited them only to revert changes for which no consensus had been demonstrated. -- Donald Albury 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However I suspect that a more supportable idea would be along the lines of formal informed consensus voting. New policies are inacted through a classic informed consensus vote type thing, then only modified through formal ammendments subject to community 'vote'. The arbitration committee or similar could be used to vet proposals, to prevent daily trivial ammendments. LinaMishima 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, something needs to be done 

message: People interested in this are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. >Radiant< 15:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project note