On 04/01/13 16:01, Steven Walling wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling <tstarl...@wikimedia.org>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.
The solution for social problems is to have rules and a means to punish people who break them. This is well-established by experimental psychology, see for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599936/ Oligarchy is not the only way to achieve this, but it is the model typically used in these game theory experiments. So it is hard for me to understand why you think it is ridiculous. Oligarchy is a popular model for the governance of organisations. WMF itself is governed by a Board of Trustees. Nobody seems to think that is ridiculous. I'm not saying that good behaviour on Wikipedia can be enforced by the direct efforts of a governing committee. I am saying that a governing committee could have sufficient resources under its control (case officers, etc.) to effect significant change. -- Tim Starling _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l