User:SmokeyJoe/Wikipedia governance reform

Due to several proposals (one of the latest) over the years to further bureaucratize Wikipedia and establish hieriarchies some may have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia has become too much of a "social experiment" or an experiment in how to better form an organization or governance. Those that believe in the power of the Community to decide things for themselves without there being a class structure or power system in play to enforce or decide things for us may want to band together and fight within the system that may inevitably be formed giving Wikipedia a representative body that would make policy decisions for us. Should policy decisions ever go from being the purview of the Community at-large and be given over to a smaller elected body then those who believe in the core values that Wikipedia has always held dear may want to form a primitive political party in order to ensure we are represented in such a body. Until such a need is found, we should be prepared ahead of time, and have a group established with identified members in contact at a central page, in order to discuss how to protect certain inalienable rights of Wikipedians that may get trampled (and are constantly under attack already).

There is some worthy old opinion here, criticism at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VanishedUser 23asdsalkaka/Partysandbox, I mean to review it. Feel free to contibute.

Our core beliefs We have a set of core beliefs on how Wikipedia should work. Those rights being that- IAR is a real policy and applies in real situations, Common sense exists and per IAR can be used in opposition to policy, Consensus is the way of doing things in individual situations and in creating policy, consensus can override (per IAR) established policy, Policies are not laws per WP:NOTSTATUTE, There is no hierarchy, we all are equal in our say and our responsibility in enforcing policy, The Wikipedia:5P is not a constitution, nor do policies flow from it, it is a summary of what is common in the use of Wikipedia. Ignore all rules Too often some editors get the impression that IAR is just an excuse used by vandals and those who want to disrupt or "get their own way" over that of consensus. Some believe that IAR cant be used at all, because policies are laws and must be adhered to, thereby there isnt any way IAR could be used, they believe it to be an abstract. We believe that IAR is real, it exists, and it is used often without being noticed. We will as a group monitor and keep IAR from being under attack and defend its use or defend it from being watered down. We point out that IAR is only used if the edit is for the improvement of Wikipedia. Thereby we dont acknowledge that IAR is an excuse by vandals or those disrupting because they arent using IAR though they may say the words "IAR". Common sense We recognize that common sense exists and as with IAR if something would obviously be better by not going by the literal word of a policy or guideline, the common sense solution should be done. Consensus Consensus is the only way for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to have any sense of legitimacy, both through their creation and maintanence by way of consensus and through their being enforced (or ignored) through consensus. IAR comes into play again as a consensus can alway choose to ignore a policy, and over time change it if it is being ignored enough. WP:NOTSTATUTE Per wp:NOTSTATUTE Wikipedia's policies are not laws. We oppose any effort to create standardized punishment for violations or to enforce our policies strictly by the letter. Again the primacy of IAR is adhered to. Hierarchy We oppose any imposition of a hierarchy or class structure in which there are individuals with a greater say or voice than others. Administrators are equal editors with an equal say to non-admins. We oppose any further restrictive proposals to limit the rights of newbies or IPs in the effort to "curb vandalism", while we see vandalism as a serious problem our belief is that new editors and IPs have much to contribute. Draconian measures to force IPs to sign up or to make newbies wait exorbitant periods for the most minor of abilities (and much worse proposals) are unacceptable steps down a slippery slope towards more restrictions on all editors. 5 Pillars We do not recognize the 5 Pillars as being authoritative or having any inherent power. The page is descriptive, not prescriptive of what policies and principles Wikipedia has, and may change. Policy trumps whatever is said in the Five Pillars should an individual policy ever conflict with the 5P. We prefer to refer to the WP:Trifecta as it is looser and more inline with the beliefs on this page. What we do Our goals are to defend the six inalienable rights listed above in discussions that may arise at various policy and guideline talk pages, the Village Pumps, and other locations. We establish ourselves as a place to go for mediation and render judgements on conflicts at talk pages based on the six values we hold dear. Anytime conflicts are found by a member in which our group would have an interest in defending one side over another, it would be posted for our members who are interested to go and support that side. We inform each other and keep a posting of places where those in the group may go to voice their support of what we hold dear, and to vote should "votes" occur on various proposals or policies. In the event that a proposal for "republicanism" (as is currently at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Move to republicanism?) ever suceed we would put forth candidates of our own (or pose questions to those who are running to find those that do and do not share our values) and endorse them, encourage our members to vote for them, and spread the word to other editors to vote for those we have endorsed or not to vote for those who do not share our values. Supporters Camelbinky (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Strausszek (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Largely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Sample contents text