Wikipedia talk:Policy council

Solution in search of a problem

I don't understand what this is trying to solve. - brenneman ^{L} 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• My sentiments exactly, Brenneman. It's a terrible idea to even contemplate. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Love this proposal

Do you want help in developping this. User:SynergeticMaggot pointed me here [1] since it is similar to one I wanted to propose.

KV(Talk) 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What is this?

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)

Eek!

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)

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)

I am opposed to creating such a committee. Wikipedia should avoid formal bureaucracy as much as possible. Everyone knows I am not opposed to committees - I have even suggested that just as there be an ArbCom to mediate personal conflicts and violations of personal conduct rules, there should be a committee to mediate entrenched disputes over article content, although this proposal had few or no supporters. Kelly is suggesting a committee to do ... what? Ensure that our policies are well-written? That they are consistent? This should be done by any group of editors on the talk page of the policy. I see only one potential problem, and it is one that others have pointed out in the past: that sometimes an editor with practically no editing experience and little experience in succesfully resolving disputes - that is, people who are likely to misunderstand our policies - then tries to change a policy. I think this is a problem and deserves attention. However, I think creating a formal, select committee is too elitist an approach. The easiest solution is simply to protect all policy pages such that only administrators can edit. The number of administrators is quite large and diverse and thus not liable to the weaknesses of an elite committee. Of course there are alternatives: some have suggested that one must have been a registered user for a certain amount of time (e.g. six months) or have a minimum number of article page edits. I favor the "limit to admins" solely because it is the easiest to impliment of the three, but I have no objection to the other two. I know of only one objection to these three alternatives: that they are elitist in that they restrict who can edit policy pages. I personally reject this criticism because policy pages are radically different in nature from articles, and it was to write encyclopedia articles that our open-editing wiki nature ws established as bedrock. But to those who maintin this criticism I simply point out, Kelly Martin´s proposal is far more elitist and, in my opinion, unnecessarily so. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose as well. I am actually shocked to see a long standing Wikipedian make such a proposal and keep it out of the community airwaves. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

is this a real proposal?

Kelly, you are of course welcome to propose a new policy or guideline. But to do so, you have to divorce it from your talk page and list it here: [2]. Until you do, you cannot put the "proposed" tag on your proposal page. You can keep it on your talk page as you refine it, but once you want to formally list it as a proposed new policy and add the tag, make it independent of your own talk page, and list it on the official list of proposals page. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't be such a process wonk. A policy proposal doesn't have to live in any particular namespace. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It should, if the community is expected to buy into it and to have a voice. You seriously don't think this sort of unilateralism will go down so easily, do you? I can see why you'd want to keep this in your userspace... FeloniousMonk 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don´t be so lazy. It doesn´t take much effort to post your proposal in the appropriate space. What reason could you possible have for not doing so? You don´t want others to know about yoru proposal? Then don´t make it an official proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, why? (Also, it was already listed in the category by virtue of having the tag on it, so that's not an issue.) Stuff that people don't immediately latch on to that *doesn't* live in userspace tends to get deleted. If this is policy, I think it's a destructive one—if anything having it live in someone's userspace makes it a bit more clear that it is absolutely not official yet and still in draft stages. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a reasonable response to my point. I´d still rather see a proposal for a policy council to be listed under "p" rather than "k." Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Well, if that's your objection, it's been taken care of. Have a nice day! Kelly Martin (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been discussing this proposal with people for nearly a month now. I don't understand why you think I'm trying to hide it by putting it in my userspace. I'm am actually contemplating moving it to Wikipedia: space for further discussion, but I figured I'd work on the draft in user space first. Apparently you think I'm not allowed to do that, although I can't for the life of me imagine what convoluted twisting of actual policy you pulled that out of, because it doesn't make a whit of sense to me. And gives me that much more reason to believe that we, in fact, need a policy council -- to keep such mindnumbingly bad ideas from becoming policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I write, "You can keep it on your talk page as you refine it," and you write, "Apparently you think I'm not allowed to do that." If this is your idea of responsible communication, you would be the very last person I would put on any Wikipedia committee or council. I wrote respectfully and in good faith, providing my reasons. Your response was simply to dismiss me as a policy wonk. I´d say that shows disrespect and bad faith. My first two comments, while dissenting from your argument, were written with the assumption that you care about an open exchange of ideas. Now I have little hope for that. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up yet! Kelly is quite a good communicator, just drop all the stuff about motivations and address the policy very directly and concretely. There's nothing to be gained by talking about why this proposal is being introduced in a particular way. There's everything to be gained by talking directly and concretely about the proposal. GTBacchus^(talk) 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the kerfluffle here? Proposed policies run the gamut from cohesive concepts like this one (whether one likes the idea or not) to all the ramblings I've dumped in my userspace. On seeing a proposed policy the first reaction ought to be engagement of the policy, not quibbling over the location. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And I appreciate Slrubenstein's lengthy substantive objection above and intend to rebut it later tonight. Unfortunately, I've had to waste time dealing with process-wonk procedural objections which are totally lacking in any real substance. It perplexes me that people will go to such lengths arguing over procedural irrelevancies just so as to avoid actually discussing the substance of the proposal. I half-expect this page to be listed for deletion before morning. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It cuts both ways Kelly. What could possibly be gained by imputing motives "just so as to avoid actually discussing the substance" to Slrubenstein, who's still waiting for a reply to his lengthy post that contains actual discussion of the substance? I'll tell you what's to be gained: erosion of good will. I'll agree that quibbling over the namespace is very silly, but I won't agree that Slrubenstein is avoiding the substance. He's bringing it. You and Slrubenstein are both so committed to Wikipedia, why snip at each other? You're both good eggs; just deal with it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What you call "process-wonk procedural objections" I call ensuring the community has a say in this. With your history of unilateralism when it comes to policy since wikimania, this proposed policy is alarming enough on it's own, seeking to limit who creates policy and how policy is amended, while being drafted in userspace away from an unsuspecting community and proper community input. But when one considers your recent IRC discussion on this topic at #wikipedia proposing that all policy needs to determined by a small group of policy makers in face-to-face meetings funded by the foundation, and away from the community and its' input, led by Kelly and Kim Bruning, then ignoring calls for this proposed policy to be placed where the community expects to see proposed policies and then edit warring to keep its' proposed policy template while hidden away here is simply unacceptable. FeloniousMonk 23:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, what do I have to do with anything? I only saw this page just now. Kim Bruning 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, my first comment was a substantive response to the proposal (just look at the preceeding section). Kelly, you say you have been discussing this with people for nearly a month and suggest that you want this to be a public discussion. Might I suggest that you place an announcement on the talk page of each of our policies, or at least the ones linked to five pillars, provind a link to your proposed policy and inviting people to comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem per se with this being in user space, but there is a problem if Kelly won't let others edit it, which the comment "kindly stay out of my userspace" to Radiant! implies.

I've always thought limiting who can edit policy is a good idea, but this is too drastic. Better to start by limiting by number of edits, time as an editor, or admin status (preferably the first, in my view). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree that Kelly not letting other editors touch this is wrong. Given the nature of the proposed policy, I suppose it's not surprising, tho. Maybe she's taking the policy for a test drive before it's approved? Friday (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I objected to someone removing the proposed policy tag in a fit of absurd process-wonking. It's in my user space because it's a draft. If it bothers you so much for it to be in user space, feel free to (gasp) move it to Wikipedia space. Or ask for my permission to do so, if you feel you need it. That would be a far more sensible reaction than the aggressive "detagging" that Radiant!, Slrubenstein, and others have been engaging in, for the sheer sake of bullbaiting, as far as I can tell. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, you continue to attribute bad motives to other editors here. You're being needlessly rude, and it's not helping your case. Friday (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, what Kelly calls "process-wonk procedural objections" I call ensuring the community has a say in a fundamental shift in how policy is made and amended. Who's the process-wonk then, and to what end? FeloniousMonk 23:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that this proposed policy, a small group of policy makers determining the rules in face-to-face meetings away from community input, runs counter the very spirit and foundation of the project. FeloniousMonk 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Could Kelly explain what is meant by her including Kim Bruning on the council? [3] If the board is to appoint some people, and the rest are to be elected, and the proposal hasn't even been discussed yet, how can Kelly Martin know in advance who is to be on it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of this policy. But really? Slim, don't ask quetions based on reports of IRC hearsay. And lighten up everyone, proposals are always good for us - even if some (like this one) will never fly. wikipedia can always be improved. --Doc 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not? If Kelly uses IRC to discuss policy proposals, then obviously what she says can be discussed on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

proposals risk leading to more policy and I haven't finished reducing the amount we have at the moment.Geni 02:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't be on it, so the point is moot. Kelly is free to do as she likes within reason, and I'm free to subvert her efforts within reason. :-) Kim Bruning 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed with Kelly Martin, and she denies saying anything about me having anything to do with it. Good! :-) Kim Bruning 08:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is unacceptable

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't see any sign that Joshua hasn't read it, BoG. That said, it's pretty unclear. Here are the main issues for me:

• First, there's no need (and no explanation offered) for this group to meet and for that to be financed. Not even the Arbitration Committee gets that.
• It's only people who can't afford to travel themselves who will be financed: so are people to be means-tested, or how is that to work?
• Kelly's claim that she'll involve Kim Bruning needs to be explained, given that Kim was vehemently opposed the last time there was even a suggestion of limiting the editing of policy pages.
• There's no definition of "active editors," which is the most important point, in my view. The current problem with the policies is that people who don't edit much are allowed to change them, and because they don't have a lot of editing experience, their proposals often don't make sense, which leads to a lot of back and forth and endless discussion on talk pages.
• Kelly hasn't explained the benefit or point of the five appointed/10 elected structure.
• The way in which the council's recommendations and clarifications would be put into effect is not explained at all.

In short, this proposal seems to say: Kelly Martin would like to set up a policy cabal and have its travel financed. Kim Bruning has already been chosen as a member of it. Once set up, the cabal will decide what it does. Can Kelly Martin say whether she would put herself forward as a member, either appointed or elected? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with all that. The travel stipend is a real Lulu. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Per E-mail, Kelly denies having made any claims about me. Which is a good thing, since I'm not doing anything with this. I hope this concludes my involvement here. Have a good one! :-) Kim Bruning 08:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good start, makes people think

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)

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)

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)

A few questions.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Could we require that ArbCom members shouldn't be members of the PC (no double jobs)? --Ligulem 17:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Namespace

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. Now we can put that aside and focus on the proposal instead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Some questions from discussions above:

1. What is the rationale behind this proposal?
2. Why is there a request for this group to meet and for that to be financed?
3. What is the definition of "active editor"?
4. What is the rationale and/or benefit or point of the five appointed/10 elected structure.
5. What is the process by which this proposed council would work?

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would want to know if there is any precedent in Wikipedia for a council to be elected, to decide after the election how will they perform their duties, as per this statement:

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)

Centralisation of power

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)

Well, something needs to be done

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)

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)

Project note

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