User:B Fizz/Balance and separation of powers

How it is

Up until this point, the main way to know what position an editor holds in the wikitocracy is to look at his userrights. Editors with more userrights—particularly Administrators and Bureaucrats—are typically considered more authoritative, since the Wikipedia community trusted them enough to vote them into that position.

But doesn't it bother you that it's so all-or-nothing? Either you have both the mop and the authority, or you don't. Now, don't get me wrong; I think our admins are doing a fantastic job, and I very much appreciate the countless hours of thankless volunteer work that they provide. But I think the community is stagnating; it's unwilling to try new ideas. And I think a large part of that is because of admins. The ones that passed a rigorous RfA, and have stuck around ever since. Wikipedia needs to continue to be fueled by new ideas, or it will hit the glass ceiling. Wikipedia needs fresh blood and fresh pairs of eyes to look at the situation anew and dare to try out radical change.

But how? Radical change never flies when we put it to a community vote. And that's how WP works. There's the community, and the admins. Not to alienate the admins from the community, but they're part of a sort of transcendent group. These are the two main bodies that decide what policy is and implement it.

• Community: elect admins, create or nullify policy
• Admins: enact policies

Since admins enact policy, it is often the case that they take a great part in the creating/nullifying of policy as well. Thus, admins collectively have a heavy hand in directing Wikipedia.

The idea

I am putting forward the idea that we should introduce a two more deciding bodies. Let's call them "inventors" and "synthesizers".

• Community: elect other bodies, can overturn actions of other bodies
• Inventors: assess issues at Wikipedia and create/revise new policies periodically
• Synthesizers: merge/revise existing policies, remove dysfunctional or superfluous policies
• Admins: enact policies

Why this is a Good Idea _(TM)

We need people to push new ideas and try out new things. They will be Inventors.

We need people to protect us from policy creep and to keep the Inventors in check, without seriously hindering their ability to put new ideas into effect. They will be Synthesizers.

Inventors, Synthesizers, and Admins will all be mutually exclusive groups. In other words, you can only be in one group at a time. Of course, you are always part of the Community. [Insert explanation here of why this makes the idea good.]

The objections

Now I can already hear people screaming objections, so let's consider them.

A: That will add tons more bureaucracy and drama!
B: Yes it will. So?
A: Time spent not writing an encyclopedia is time wasted.
B: Not if the extra bureaucracy ends up making WP a better place.

A: You're taking power away from the community! That's wrong!
B: Yes and no. Shouldn't the community be focusing on writing an encyclopedia anyways?
A: But the community needs to have a say in all issues of policy.
B: And it will. But that doesn't mean that a majority vote is the best way to determine Yes or No on trying a new policy.

A: You haven't addressed these concerns very well
B: I know. Give me time to think, improve the idea, and get feedback.

The idea of the two new groups is that they don't actually have any more userrights than anybody else. They are simply accepted by the community as people with the power to do the things they do.