Wikipedia talk:Editorial Council

Premature polling is evil

Note: Poll has since been moved to Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll.

I strongly recommend the the poll above be removed. This is much too soon. I cannot emphasize this enough. While polls and votes have their uses, premature polling is a virtual guarantee of confusion, wiki-drama, and dispute over outcomes. There are a number of problems. One big objection is that it creates a strong bias for a false dichotomy -- it frames the discussion as "you're for it or against it", instead of inviting useful feedback and discussion. It's antithetical to the entire concept of consensus. Another problem is that the proposal is almost certainly going to change, perhaps significantly, during the poll. A vote on a moving target is worse than useless. You don't vote first, then draw up the ballot and have the debates. Take a look at the Rollback fiasco for an example of how it will play out. Please please please remove the poll. Once the proposal reaches static equilibrium, any objections are addressed, any minority reports noted, etc. -- that's the time for a vote, if there needs to be one. • See also: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Polls are evil. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sick and tired of having no idea what the consensus on something is. Nobody's forcing anyone to "vote" at all, and it sure doesn't prevent people from talking about and discussing it. Not to mention there are four options, so it's not a false dichotomy. All it does it present people's opinions in a more readable form and easy to view form than header after subheader. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Forcing things into a support/oppose vote does not make consensus clearer. Indeed, it confuses the issue, because now all discussion is framed as support/oppose/whatever, and people argue over that. Counting votes does not establish consensus. • While nobody is being "forced" to vote, I do think the current format strongly encourages people to vote, by framing the discussion as a vote. Please see WP:!VOTE, especially items #3 and #5, and also WP:PRACTICAL. • While there may be four options, this still frames the discussion as "support, oppose, or those other things". • There's another problem with framing the discussion as a vote, which I forgot to mention before. In a poll, it is implied that it is a vote-count. That means that people (being human) have a very strong sense that they must vote, or otherwise be disenfranchised. That's the very point of a poll, to count votes. And if one doesn't vote, one's opinion doesn't count. This encourages a large number of "me too" style WP:JUSTAVOTE's. This page will quickly turn into a giant sea of "me too" voting; no practical discussion will occur past that point. Review the edit history of the Non-Admin Rollback poll for an example. • If we must have a vote first (before we're sure what we're voting on), please at least make it a sub-page (like Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll) to avoid turning this discussion page into an edit-storm of voting. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll move it to the subpage, that seems like a more equitable solution. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair compromise. Thanks for listening.  :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Existing mechanisms

One thing that occurs to me immediately is that this proposal (which I think does have some merit, by the way) seems to ignore existing mechanisms. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution covers this in detail, but I'm thinking of WP:3O, WP:RFC and most especially Wikipedia:Mediation. Isn't Mediation intended to address exactly these sorts of situations, where two or more parties are "dug in" and consensus is not moving forward? If Mediation as it stands isn't sufficient, would we be better off trying to improve that process, rather than trying to create another, very-similar process? Or am I getting it wrong? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The processes are nowhere near similar. First of all, "dispute resolution" currently equals "user conduct dispute resolution", not "content dispute resolution". This is an entirely different chain of appeals. As for the cases you've mentioned, those processes are small-scale: their disputes are limited in scope and size, usually confined to a single article and usually between just between two and five editors. The Editorial Council would be for large-scale disputes, like the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" clusterfrak a year or two ago. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand, now. What's the difference between a "user dispute" and a "content dispute"? I mean, content itself is inanimate; it can't by itself be a dispute. You need people for a dispute to happen. So what's the difference? Just the number of people who are involved? • Okay, so mediation is currently typically used for mediating disputes between 2-5 editors. What makes Mediation inappropriate for disputes involving larger groups of editors? (Not trying to be argumentative; I honestly don't understand what the difference is here.) • Maybe it would help if you gave an example of what an Editorial Council action would look like. A mock-up, if you will. • One thing hovering in my mind is "verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). There's not supposed to be a "right version" on Wikipedia; editors aren't supposed to judge truth. So what will the Editorial Council be deciding? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant conduct dispute and content dispute. A content dispute is a simple dispute about content. This can be anything, ranging from where a comma goes to whether it's Burma or Myanmar. A conduct dispute is when two editors are fighting for reasons that have moved beyond the content dispute. We're so oriented towards making everybody happy, we forget why they weren't happy in the first place.

The best way to tackle the root issue of whether it's Burma or Myanmar or something else entirely is not to focus on whether a certain editor is being a jerk or whether another editor is using sockpuppets. That's ArbCom's sphere. But the nitty-gritty issue still remains: is it Burma or is it Myanmar or is it something else? And like a tumor throwing off clots, this will continue to cause irreconcilable controversy and continue to produce disruptive editors. The best way to deal with it is to remove the tumor by providing a group of editors who will provide us with a definitive answer. Like you said, it's about verifiability not truth. They aren't opposing concepts, however. 99% of the time they're the same thing. But there are some instances, like Burma/Myanmar, where there is no correct answer. In that situation, you'll never make everybody happy. And so we need something to fall back on, something to point to and say, "That's what consensus says it is."

We need something to make the tough decisions, something to cut through all the endless and repetitive discussions to say what the consensus is. When a simple administrator does it, it allows bias to creep into the mix. Establishing this council will allow us to proceed far more smoothly than we would without it. About your example of an Editorial Council action, I'll work on that right now. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why discuss it?

If we discussed the founding of Wikipedia, it wouldn't have happened! But alas, Wikipedia editors enjoy a good tawk. I find this proposal to be simultaneously delicious and soft like a kitten, and I would like to see this happen. Why? Because this website is inherently bad at conclusion. That's just the nature of a wiki. Everything changes always. This will help turn "eternity" from "eternal dispute" into "eternal development". And to disclose my conflict of interest, if this were to gain consensus I'd run for a seat on the EdCo. --harej 04:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If this ever did happen, there probably should be a rule that anyone who wants to be on the committee should be disqualified from running.  :) We'd have to find a way around that, so some people could actually be elected. All seriousness aside, I have no problem with the concept here, but disagree with some of the details... but as I said in the "poll", the chances of this happening are so slim that a discussion of the details seems pointless. The same institutional bias (for endless discussion, never leading to a conclusion) that creates the need for something like this, also serves to ensure that it will never be accepted by the community. But sure, talk all you want; that's what Wikipedia is best at. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

MessedRocker, you are my hero. "I find this proposal to be simultaneously delicious and soft like a kitten". Awesome. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not replacable

Yet that's the thing. We often times do not reach a consensus. I would appreciate an organization that would allow us to progress in the face of communal uncertainty. --harej 05:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say we usually do reach a consensus. The question is: would this proposal help in those few cases where we cannot reach a consensus? Consider why we fail to reach consensus. In most cases where there is a content dispute the interested editors work together on the talk page and work out a compromise. Sometimes this leads to awkward and clumsy prose but often we arrive at a well thought out balanced account, better than either party would produce on their own.

Sometimes there is no compromise possible - the comma is there or it isn't. These cases are rare and usually relate to grammer/punctuation/spelling issue peripheral to that article. In most of those cases we pick one option and learn to live with it. If the arguments are really that finely balanced then you can't really say either one is wrong.

The remaining areas where we don't achieve consensus are always, in every case, due to two parties being prepared to fight and fight and fight and never accept the 'wrong' version. In other words - it's a conduct dispute. I can see the appeal of bypassing all the hassle of an Arbcom case and just smacking both parties and taking their toy away - this really could short circuit discussion - however I am not yet convinced it is really the best solution. Filceolaire (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the final paragraph. There are cases where two groups are willing to "fight" endlessly, but with impeccable manners and without any conduct violations. Indeed, this is a good strategy for trolls and nutcases: violating 3RR quickly gets them blocked, but by being polite, they can continue to disrupt an article for weeks or months. Worse, they often keep at it far longer than any reasonable editor. EdCo would be a tool for fighting such trolls without spending ages in endless, pointless arguments. --Zvika (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Binding or non-binding?

I think there's a lot of merit in this idea, and I fully agree with the distinction between content and conduct disputes. I don't quite understand the end result of this process, though: "the council discusses and votes on its findings. These findings are not carved in stone or binding policy. ... [T]hey should be used as a guide to existing consensus and as a road map for future discussions." How will this work, exactly? Users appealing to the editorial council have already exhausted their attempts to achieve a consensus. They have very different visions of what an article should look like. I find it hard to believe that such longstanding disputes could benefit from an outsider pointing out a "road map for future discussions." --Zvika (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in my opinion if you're going to have the buck stop somewhere for editorial disputes, they should be binding. Yet if the community of editors in that grand argument finally gets its act together after a billion years and they manage to come up with something better than the EdCo, then so be it! (Also, there's always IAR lurking in the corner). --harej 08:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. So the findings should be binding until such time as a new consensus is formed on the article talk page, or something like that. --Zvika (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This section seems to be continued below at #On the matter of bindingness --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

More bureaucracy, eh?

Why should a council have veto power over content? What's wrong with the consensus process? It only breaks down in a tiny minority of cases. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That tiny minority is exactly what we're talking about. Obviously the editorial council would not have to intervene if the users reach consensus themselves. --Zvika (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the point is that consensus is unreachable. --harej 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt this will really work well

There is certainly a difference between content disputes and conduct disputes, and I appreciate that ArbCom only looks at conduct. The issue, IMO, is that in a conduct dispute you have a reasonable chance of determine who is right and who is wrong, while in a content dispute things often boil down to personal preference. Part of the proposal states:

Currently many of the "resolved" disputes are not resolved at all. Most often, a small group of editors will claim victory and lock out other editors in the process.

This proposal just picks a specific small group of editors and makes their claim of victory "official". Maybe that would work, if responsible people can put aside their personal preferences to look only for consensus. But I've seen people from newbies with 10 edits to experienced members of the community with tens of thousands of edits confuse their personal preference with the One True Answer. I'd prefer to stick with the current, imperfect system of building consensus. Maybe something needs to be done about the above quoted situation, but this isn't it. Anomie⚔ 14:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it will not work. Every council decision will become a new source of conflict. Conflicts can only be resolved in the article talk pages. I've seen it work many times. Couldn't we instead clarify the dispute resolution rules and fire all the admins? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How about as a prerequisite, they really need to try to resolve it, then when all else fails, someone can hold their hand? --harej 06:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is something we will have to do, sooner or later. Eventually there has to eb a final arbiter in content disputes, because so many disputes are not possible to resolve by any other means. It addresses two serious problems for Wikipedia: long-term civil POV-pushing, and systemic bias. For example, pro-ID views are massively over-represented in Wikipedia because pro-ID people are more motivated than evolutionary biologists to have Wikipedia reflect their views. Evolutionary biologists in academia know that, as far as their field is concerned, what Wikipedia says is completely irrelevant. The idea of an editorial council is to actually enforce the Wikipedia ideal of WP:NPOV by abstracting arguments from the sheer numbers of people who support that view on Wikipedia, when that balance is out of line with the balance in the real world. And it is out of balance for virtually every one of the most contentious areas from homeopathy to Israel. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of bindingness

Opposition is apparently coming from the point of view that binding decisions on content should not be left to a group like this. I've argued that the point of this is to help out with never-ending arguments. Would this proposal taste better if the decisions could be overruled? If leaving the decision to the Almighty Group of Seven is the "punishment" (heed the scare quotes) of eternal non-consensus, then shouldn't it be lifted when the disputants can come to a conclusion on their own? I say, if they can achieve consensus, and it's within content policies, then the EdCo has been successfully overruled. --harej 06:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that it would their findings would not need be "binding" but instead a firm consensus in which editors would (and should) fallow. Seeing as the members elected to EdCo would be (preferably) some of our best and most diplomatic editors being able to see them discuss content issues amongst themselves should allow for those involved in the dispute to see both sides of the issues and see why EdCo has ruled the way it has, and in return respect the decision of the Council. But like anything else on Wikipedia, consensus can change and if there proves to be strong consensus against EdCo's findings then by all means over-ride it. Just as long as there is consensus, seeing as any consensus is better than all out edit wars. Tiptoety ^talk 06:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On the nose. --harej 08:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Binding results from a small elected council is in direct conflict with WP:Consensus. The idea of an editorial council that could be sort of a "super-mediator" for articles that were not able to be improved by mediation might be workable, but not if the council has the power to impose content rulings that must be followed. Even with the best intentions that could result in significant difficulties; and would require appeal procedures to address possible mistakes or changes of consensus based on new information or changes oft he community attitudes on a topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be an appeal process, I agree. It would be a useful way for people to tell the Council, "no, you're wrong". I'll get to work on the appeals process. --harej 08:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I never intended for the results to be binding, in the sense of "Break 'em and you're banned." Nor had I intended this council to be powerless. Instead, I was aiming for "semi-binding". Jack-A-Roe is correct in his interpretation that if this council's results were binding, it would violate WP:CONSENSUS (and probably go against Foundation issues as well). But if this was a purely advisory board, it would be ineffective. Finding that balance is essential in moving this forward. I'll make sure to address the binding-vs.-non-binding issue in the "common concerns" topics later tonight, but hopefully this should clarify my original intent for now.

This council should not and cannot rule by fiat. This body is not meant to issue edicts and instructions. Instead, the Editorial Council should rely on soft power and peer pressure to support its findings. My hope is that the community would recognize the input of a body staffed by its most talented editors, especially a body whose sole interest is improving the encyclopedia. My belief is that the community would be overjoyed to be able to use the moderate voice of the council to isolate and flush out extreme POV warriors on either side of a dispute. I don't want editors to say in disputes, "This is what the Editorial Council said about this. We have to follow it." I want editors to say, "Look, the Editorial Council has made these findings about this topic, and the community agrees. This is how we should move forward." --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My take

I think this is a proposal to start up an arbcom on content, a good faith notion that would seal the systemic bias of any self-selected editors belonging to this group into consensus-lacking articles. It goes against the very pith of Wikipedia's de-centralized editorial ways. If half a dozen or a dozen editors want to get together on their own and swoop in on dodgy, high profile articles, asking for input, coming up with a plan which will apply Wikipedia's steadfast sourcing policies to NPOV and stabilize them, then editing thereby through the strength of their numbers, please have at it, this would likely be helpful, mostly. However, giving any group extra sway beyond the consensus they can muster among themselves would be bound to bring forth more strife than you can think of. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Often times, when a group of editors swerve in and enforce a style with their sheer numbers, there's always the chance that they're the bad kind. That is what the edit warrers, the minority, fight against. An EdCo could tell the two to settle down and they would reach a conclusion, even if it's only for the interim. --harej 08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my worries as to how such a group would only further leverage systemic bias (without meaning to). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The group would be given no more sway over consensus than the community would allow it to have. Please also remember that council members wouldn't be distant, hooded and robed figures. They would be elected, by the community and from among Wikipedia's most well-respected editors, and to assume that they wouldn't respect the avoidance of systemic bias or NPOV or community consensus is extremely unfair. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd hope the community wouldn't give them any sway at all, since such a group would not be able to skirt or stem their own bias. Arbcom has enough worries handling straightforward behavioural disruption. High profile articles fall into PoV because they get taken over by self-selected groups who, through sundry demographics and happenstance, are simply more interested in spending time editing towards their outlook on Wikipedia than those with other PoVs on a topic. An editorial council as put forth here would, rather than fixing this already nettlesome trend, embed it into policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't really deal with those situations where a dispute exists between a group who are deprived of time and numbers but who factually are in a pretty strong position, and a determined group of battlers with sources that seemingly support their point of view who are trying to skew something. The first group may not be in a position to defend their arguments, and non-experts could be easily swayed, even with the absolute best of intentions. Then we have the situation where Wikipedia is a laughing stock because we have a seemingly official body making determinations about our content which news or expert organisations can skewer. Orderinchaos 20:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a little AGF is in order here. It's unfair to automatically assume that the editors elected would be such POV machines themselves. I know of a number of editors on this encyclopedia who are capable of unbiased and accurate judgments. If you don't think we could find seven people like that then how do you expect Wikipedia to survive at all? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all an AGF issue. People with the absolute best of intentions but no expert knowledge in the field could be swayed by very convincing and seemingly reputable sources, and the other side simply may not be able (through lack of time, numbers, skill etc) to convince them that the mainstream or generally held view is valid by comparison. I would note in my own field that 99.99% of the source material is nowhere to be found online and needs to be retrieved from books in libraries which can only be found in my home state, although I'm lucky enough to have such an esoteric field that I'd need to develop multiple personality disorder to end up in a conflict. Orderinchaos 23:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While I understand where you're coming from, I think we have to take a step back and look at this omnisciently. How would the Editorial Council get a case about your own field (which I assume is Western Australian politics, please correct me if I'm wrong)? I see no evidence of any of the three criterion I laid down in taking cases, and they're pretty loose criteria at that. There's no evidence of long-standing unresolved content disputes, Western Australian politics doesn't exactly have a broad impact on the encyclopedia, and there's not nationalist or ethnic conflict in your topic. Again, if I'm wrong please correct me, but I don't see any way in which a content dispute in your field could come before the Editorial Council as currently laid out.

I've stated repeatedly that the EC is for the big picture content issues. I'm talking about the kind of issues that undeniably divert sizable amounts of the community's time and effort into resolving, and even then are not laid to rest. I cannot emphasize enough how this council's job is not to stick its nose in every nook and cranny of Wikipedia, but to tackle only the biggest content issues we face. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole pith is, good faith is acknowledged. Systemic bias comes about within good faith. It can't be seen easily enough to skirt. Nobody can be NPoV. Even most takes on NPoV are bound to be PoV and understanding this is the only way to even begin editing towards the NPoV goal we're meant to have, although we'll never get there, more so if each and every edit on Wikipedia one day happens to be the Truth (TM), for even the truly true, truesome truth, which is out there, is a big docking PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Then in that case I would expect the Editorial Council to abide by WP:V, which states that the goal is verifiability and not truth. We're getting a little too much off-course into highly theoretical tangents for my tastes, though. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One can't blow off WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT and when mixed in with WP:FRINGE there is no way to get by everyone's heuristically driven PoV takes on these. All told, an "Editorial Council" would be another spin on Citizendium's pyramidal model, which has muddled systemic bias with "credibility." This indeed brings stability, since the PoV is narrowly limited to a sternly selected group. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal issue

Hello,
I think such an Editorial Council would really be a good and important thing to improve the quality of content and the ambiance on wikipedia (Wp). Too many people use the principles to disturb the development of the project. It is true as pointed here above it goes against current wikipedia philosophy but nothing prevents us to modify some basic principles.
I think there is nevertheless one important point on the legal issue. In France, Wikimedia Foundation (WmF) has been sued in justice for some content issues. WmF argued (or hided behind according to the point of view) the fact that it has absolutely no editorial control of Wp content, which where under the sole responsibility of each contributor.
If such an Editorial Council would be set-up, high care should be taken to protect its members from legal issues as well as to protect WmF from taking responsibility of content... This should be discussed with the advisers of the WmF.
WP:BLP is nearly impossible to deal, between Freedom of Speech, Right for information, protection of Private Life, in accordance with all countries legislation...
Ceedjee (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
NB:Nevertheless, there are numerous examples where such a Council would be more than welcome ! Ceedjee (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I had not considered the legal ramifications of such a body when I drafted the proposal. Unless Mike Godwin disagrees, I don't see how it could be liable in any situation. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. I see a number of situations where the Council might make a content decision which could be seen as libelous, and the board (in addition to the actual contributing editors) might very well be considered "at risk", even under US law. In the case of UK law, (as I understand it), a defamatory statement may be considered libelous unless there is proof it is true. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In which situations would the Council endorse libel? --harej 00:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fundamentally impossible for the Editorial Council to make any decision that could remotely be called libel or could be considered an endorsement thereof. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. Take Christopher Michael Langan. If the lawsuit against him had been notable (it's probably in the history somewhere; I don't think it's been deleted or oversighted), then either he or the person sueing him would take exeception to any interpretation we would make. I suppose we could get by with quotes…. If we changed one word, it's likely one side or the other would sue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What does the Editorial Council have to do with that? How would that even become a case under the three criterion I outlined for case selection? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

EdCo would be no more liable for their actions that anyone else who may make a controversial edit to a biography or such. I really do not see this being a issue. Tiptoety ^talk 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It (would be) part of a big-picture dispute, which is how notable, unresolved, lawsuits should be described.

And EdCo would be no more and no less liable for their actions than anyone else would be. But they'd be looking at areas which are more likely to be contraversial, and subject to lawsuits in some countries.

As an aside, I've been threatened with lawsuits for my actions on Usenet, but none has ever been filed, to the best of my knowledge. At least, I've never been served in such a lawsuit. I pretty much ignored the threat, other than an offer to confirm my RL identity if requested by a law firm, bypassing a subpoena of my ISP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Modification requested

This is an interesting proposal. One of its strength is that it weakens the use of sockpuppets. Having 10 socks will do no good if the editorial goal of these people are flawed. The current system is that socks (even more so, meatpuppets) can shout out others.

One modification is that the Editorial Council's goal should be compromise and cooperation, not declaring one side the winner. A council is needed because ArbCom has already said that it doesn't arbitrate editorial content.

Another modification is that there should be mechanisms to enlarge the council. In time, having only a few members will be too few.

To start out, I would recommend that the council's conclusions only advise, at least for the first 4 months. This is a way to ease into a final formula, of which nobody can predict what's best for wikipedia. 903M (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like all of these suggestions. Working towards compromise is something I'd do, even if it weren't required, enlarging will definitely be necessary (besides, more people = less autocracy), and having it as strictly an advisor for the first few months of its life will allow for more acceptance (and it can be killed off easier if it turns out to be a disaster). --harej 05:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Compromise is obviously a must, but I'm uncomfortable with the 4 month restriction. My thought is that if the community decides it's not pleased with it four months in, we've wasted a lot of people's time for nothing. I would prefer that the community either back it now or veto it now. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a believer of cooperation and building consensus/education when no initial consensus exists, at least that's what I do in daily life. If this project lasts only 4 months, I will help it and not consider it wasted.903M (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I think more people would be comfortable if the council started out with less teeth, so that if it makes newbie mistakes, it won't have as much damage. --harej 05:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal for an enlargement mechanism. The more members of the EdCo, the less likely it is for an individual to enforce POV - although I'm sure that elections will weed out any standing for the sole purpose of POV. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 16:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Provisional Editorial Council is established

A Provisional Editorial Council has been established. harej is a member of this council along with me. We will strive to assist in disputes.

Our council is entirely permitted by Wikipedia policies. We seek to foster cooperation and improvement in the encyclopedia. Individuals seeking to help mediate disputes and to calm tense situations have always been helpful to Wikipedia. The fact that our council has a name makes it no different.

As time goes on, if an Editorial Council is formed, this council could disband or join the other council. In the interim, some may look to us as a prototype. If we are not successful, analysts can speculate how improvements can be made. I expect some bumps, probably large bumps along the way.

Our first mission: Onward, improvement, scholarly work, let's go! 903M (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. And I shall proclaim myself Her Majesty's Governor-General for the Commonwealth realm of the United States of America. In this capacity, I will work on physics articles, meddle in assorted issues requiring administrator attention, and make humorous but illustrative remarks on proposed policy pages. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Foundation involvement

For what it's worth, you might want to make sure the Board wants to appoint members to this. Typically, they've shied away from getting involved with content-level things like this, preferring to let the projects sort it out. Just some food for thought. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the Foundation could become legally vulnerable by having people on this entity. Not good. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Jimbo could appoint the two, but I think more editors have expressed that the entire council should be elected. I was thinking about changing the composition to nine members, all of whom are elected. Thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the WMF being liable if this was entire community based, for what its worth. Aside from core stuff like NPOV/copyrights they leave each local community to do basically whatever they want procedurally/content wise. Same as the WMF can't take a hand in a thing like this (technically, they probably can't even "off the books") they can't do the opposite and oppose, either, I wouldn't think. They simply can't take a hand in content except for legal reasons. rootology (T) 04:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's late, and I'm tired, but I just stumbled across this page, and wanted to say that I feel it's a great idea. I do think it needs to be nine members, elected by the community. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 06:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

mediation thingy

IMHO, to avoid the problems JoshuaZ mentions, this project is duplicating the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, who are elected, and Wikipedia:Third opinion as it can only be a matter of opinion to avoid suchh isusues. Unless perhaps it avoids potential litigation subjects such as WP:BLP ? Sticky Parkin 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

As discussion seems to have died down, I propose a straw poll to determine whether there may be consensus to implement this new council. Please sign your name in one of the sections below, and try to keep long comments to the comment section. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: This poll has now been moved to Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The point of current content dispute resolution process is to enable consensus to be achieved, this Editorial Council is removing consensus and replacing it with an arbitrary authoritarian panel who make decisions from on high. Any rewriting of the set up of the Editorial Council would just lead us back to the current system. It is the very nature of the Wiki society that there will be disputes, and that the community itself, not a kangaroo court, resolves the conflict, and in that process finds impartial truth. SilkTork *^YES! 17:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think it desirable to make use of the existing formal mediation process more. I propose, as an alternative, maybe to enlarge the mediation committee so that it can take on more cases? Or, break the formal mediation process into 2 sub-steps:
  1. A request for mediation is submitted, and is handled by a process identical to the current one, except that the default action is for the Committee to accept, rather than decline, requests. (Also, participants should be able to decline a specific mediator for any just cause, rather than only "for extreme circumstances.") Basically the current formal mediation process, as modified, should be the default process for very contentious disputes that cannot be resolved informally.
  2. If after extensive efforts a dispute is not able to be resolved, or upon request of any party or of the assigned mediator, there should be the option of referring the case to the entire Mediation Committee. This should be a second-to-last resort (the last resort being Arbitration or the proposed Editorial Committee). [Another possibility is a form of mediation which is binding only in the sense that participation is mandatory – it would still be mediation, the mediator has no power to issue a binding decision, and there is no enforcement (as there is nothing to enforce), but rather, anybody who wishes to participate in the dispute must also participate in the mediation.] Bwrs (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Orderinchaos's oppose

Hello, Orderinchaos. I appreciate your oppose vote, as it gives an opportunity to seal up the cracks. And you've made the first one, so more credit for you! In any case,

• You argue that serious editorial issues are being left in the hands of seven clueless Wikipedians. You're darn right. What if I were to tell you, though, that since the Council serves as an editorial review, they must substantiate statements with reliable sources as in academia? Just like on Wikipedia articles, no one should be taken at their word, but rather, all that is said must be based on research. Cracking open a book (or a website) can certainly turn an ignorant man into an amateur scholar.
• You also argue that the committee does not allow for equally correct answers. I disagree. A wise committee would know that equally correct answers are in fact equally correct, and so they must see what it would be appropriate to use Option A and when it would be appropriate to use Option B. It won't be easy, but that is what we have multiple brains for. (As in, seven brains, one per councilperson).

I also find it necessary to evaluate how much drama a conclusion would cause. While a respect for academia should come first, resolutions should also be considered considering the community -- the second-most important part about Wikipedia. Resolutions should have a side-goal of zero drama (granted "zero drama" is purely an asymptote). I can imagine very well how decisions would upset editors, and so if upsetting editors is unavoidable, then go for equal opportunity upsetting. Though hopefully, no upsetting needs to be done at all. --harej 08:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

NPoV

• Contributors who deal mainly with Administrative tasks and who are sensitive to the collaborative aspect of the project should think about Editors who develop articles'content and should have in mind that most of content dispute are not solved due to the fact no committee can take care of content issues often obvious to solve;
• Contributors who deal mainly with Content should have in mind the importance of collaboration, compromise and the fact that the main difference between wikipedia and other encyclopaedia is the full application of NPoV and that this requires often long and tiring discussions.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)