User:Walton One/Constitution of Wikipedia

Like any large, organised community, Wikipedia has a de facto political system, with a system of rules and a power structure. This essay attempts to analyse the unwritten "constitution" of Wikipedia, with reference specifically to the English Wikipedia.

Obviously, Wikipedia is not a nation-state and has no economy or permanent inhabitants, so the power relationships involved in the Wikipedia constitution are not the same as those exercised by a nation-state over its citizens. Better parallels in the real world are the constitutions and power structures of universities, private clubs, and political parties.

Sources of the Wikipedia "constitution"

Insofar as Wikipedia has a constitution, it is an uncodified one, like those of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Israel; there is no single document that calls itself the "constitution" of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's internal structure and constitutional practices are therefore drawn from a number of sources which have developed over time. The main sources are:

• The foundation issues. Hosted on Meta, these are the founding principles of Wikipedia and are generally considered to be beyond debate. Other policies and guidelines have to fit within the framework of these basic rules. For instance, the neutral point of view policy is fundamental to the Wikipedia ethos; those who are unable to accept it generally end up leaving the project.
• The five pillars of Wikipedia, and other core fundamental policies which are long-established as the basic rules of Wikipedia (for example, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Consensus). Again, these are unlikely ever to be abolished or substantially altered by consensus, and those who disagree with them on a fundamental level tend to leave Wikipedia and go to other projects. Other policies and guidelines tend to stem from the basic principles established by the five pillars.
• Convention and practice. This is by far the largest part of the Wikipedia "constitution". Because Wikipedia relies on consensus for its decision-making process, many aspects of the day-to-day running of Wikipedia are not codified in formal rules, but simply operate the way they do because of longstanding practice and tradition. An example is the requests for adminship process; the standards for administrators, and the process and criteria for selecting them, are not contained in official policy, but are established by precedent and de facto consensus.
• Statements of Jimmy Wales. Although the founder of Wikipedia exercises little day-to-day political power within the Wikipedia constitution, his past statements (most notably Adminship is no big deal) carry considerable weight and authority with Wikipedia editors. This can be seen as analogous to the authority of the works of A. V. Dicey within the uncodified British constitution; while Dicey's works carry no formal statutory authority, they are still used extensively in making decisions.

Branches of government

Executive branch

The executive branch of Wikipedia consists of the administrators and bureaucrats. Administrators have the technical power to block users, delete content and protect pages; bureaucrats have the additional ability to change usernames and to grant administrator and bureaucrat rights to other users. In theory, administrators and bureaucrats are (as their titles suggest) simple functionaries, analogous to a civil service; they carry out their responsibilities within the parameters permitted by the policies and guidelines, as established by community consensus. However, in practice, they have some discretionary authority in their interpretation of the policies and guidelines.

Administrators have several abilities relating to Wikipedia content, including the right to delete material from Wikipedia or apply page protection. This inevitably involves a certain amount of discretionary authority in the interpretation and application of policy. Most deletions and protections are comparatively non-controversial and clear-cut. In cases of controversial deletions, community input is sought through the deletion debate process; in these cases, although administrators will listen to the community's arguments, they will make the final decision based on the policies and guidelines.

Administrators also have power to dispense a form of nonjudicial punishment in the form of blocks. In theory, blocks are preventative and not punitive; they are designed to prevent a user from damaging Wikipedia. Most blocks are issued to blatant vandals and are non-controversial. However, in some cases, blocks are used as a form of de facto discipline to users who violate Wikipedia policies, such as the no personal attacks policy or the three-revert rule. These actions, when taken by an individual administrator without community consultation, are often highly controversial. (The closest analogy in real life would be the ability of police and traffic wardens to dispense on-the-spot fines for traffic violations, as occurs in many nations.) As such, it does not imply that administrators are "political" office-holders; they are bound to exercise their authority only within the parameters set by community policies and guidelines.

Bureaucrats have a discretionary role which, although rarely exercised, is always controversial; in closing requests for adminship, where the community has not reached a clear consensus on the result (i.e. where the outcome is around 75% support), they can exercise some discretion in determining whether or not to grant administrative tools to the candidate. This can be seen as a "political" role, and, when it occurs, tends to produce an effect analogous to a constitutional crisis. These situations occur comparatively rarely, as the community consensus is usually clear on a request for adminship or bureaucratship. The political position of a bureaucrat could thus be seen rather like the American Vice President's role in the United States Senate; ordinarily he wields no power there, but can vote to break a tie when the senators are equally divided.

Legislative branch

The legislative power of Wikipedia is vested in the community as a whole, as it is the community that has the power to make or repeal policies and guidelines. This is, in its essence, a form of direct democracy. However, this is complicated by the fact that the community is not allowed to make decisions by majority vote; it is a common Wikipedia axiom that voting is evil, and decisions are made by consensus and discussion. This can often become unwieldy, and can leave proposed policies and guidelines in a state of flux, as there is no clear way of determining whether they enjoy community "consensus" or not. Generally, a policy or guideline becomes official when an editor tags it as an official policy or guideline, and no one removes the tag. To summarise, therefore, Wikipedia's legislative system can be described as "direct democracy without voting", a system which is probably unique in all organisations throughout history.

Judicial branch

The judicial power of Wikipedia is vested principally in the Arbitration Committee, an elected body with power to hear cases and issue binding rulings, including banning users. In general, the role of the Arbitration Committee on Wikipedia is analogous to that of the United States Supreme Court within the American political system; while the Committee does not formally "make" new policy, its rulings and precedents are seen as binding and are used as points of reference in future disputes, and it has power to interpret and apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is worth noting that the Arbitration Committee does not generally rule on content, only on the conduct of users.

Some elements of judicial power are also vested in the community as a whole, through the community sanction noticeboard, in which the community can discuss whether to ban a user. This has been criticised by some Wikipedians, who see it as an effective lynch mob which lacks the fairness and impartiality of an Arbitration Committee hearing. However, others see it as an important aspect of the ultimate power of the community as Wikipedia's sovereign body, as well as a method of reducing the workload of the Arbitration Committee. Possibly it could be seen as analogous to trial by jury, although this parallel is inexact.

Most disputes which are not heard by the Arbitration Committee are resolved through the dispute resolution processes, including the Mediation Committee. However, as mediators do not have power to issue binding rulings, they are not part of Wikipedia's "judicial branch". They are closer to the alternative dispute resolution procedures used in many countries, or to an out-of-court settlement in civil law.

The role of Jimbo Wales

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has certain residual powers within the Wikipedia "constitution". He still has the power to ban users by personal edict; his authority to do this has been upheld by the Arbitration Committee, and although he rarely intervenes now, the bans issued by him remain in force. Likewise, it is still Mr. Wales who formally appoints the members of the Arbitration Committee following the annual elections. These can be seen as similar to the theoretical powers of Queen Elizabeth II in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms.

Thus, Jimmy Wales can be seen essentially as Wikipedia's head of state-for-life. He does not have a formal position or office within the Wikipedia hierarchy, and his authority is personal; no one would "succeed" to his position if he were to die. His position is probably most analogous to that of a non-hereditary constitutional monarch or a president-for-life (such as Malietoa Tanumafili II, former head of state of Samoa).

Constitutional reform

As Wikipedia gets larger and more complex, it may become necessary to make fundamental reforms to its governance. Reforms thus far have been conducted on an ad hoc basis, with new policies and processes arising by consensus to meet current needs; however, it is possible that in the future, Wikipedia's system of project governance will be completely overhauled. This may include the adoption of a formal Wikipedia "constitution" or "charter", setting out the structure of Wikipedia and consolidating the existing core policies.

Aspects of Wikipedia's governance that may need to be changed are:

• The role of Jimbo Wales. His special powers are increasingly anachronistic in the modern-day Wikipedia community; it is also worth noting that he does not exercise personal power on other Wikimedia projects, which generally govern themselves. It is likely that his political role will be gradually phased out.
• The legislative process. Most private organisations on the scale of Wikipedia, including universities, members' clubs and political parties, have some form of formal legislative process in which members can vote on binding resolutions. Although the inbuilt cultural resistance to voting on Wikipedia (see m:Polling is evil) means that straightforward referenda are unlikely to become the norm, the project will undoubtedly need a more formal process for adoption of policies and guidelines.
• The role of administrators and bureaucrats; the limitations on their discretionary authority may need to be defined more clearly in the future.

The only aspects of Wikipedia that are unlikely to change are the foundation issues, with "neutral point of view" as the core editorial principle.