Wikipedia talk:Formal organization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Origination of this article[edit]

This article began as a contribution by myself to Citizendium, and I inserted it on the Talk page of the WP article Wikipedia as a proposed addition. Several changes were suggested and implemented, and the result was submitted to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for further review. Having passed that process, the present article is the result.

Many editors raised the question of using WP as a source about itself. Reservations about such use is proper when addressing subjects of controversy, interpretation, evaluation, or opinion, but the present article is actually only a matter-of-fact listing of officers of WP and their duties, and there is no intent to present any attempt at "significant viewpoints" concerning these simple facts.

Naturally, this article in its present form may reflect some factual omissions or errors. I hope that those more aware of the organization of WP will correct any such problems. Brews ohare (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Commentary[edit]

I was originally under the impression this was destined to become an article, but it's now living in the Wikipedia: namespace. So it's an essay now? Shouldn't be be tagged as such: {{essay}}? Яehevkor 19:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's not a policy or guideline, having not been proposed and accepted as such, and definitely is the advice and opinions of one or more editors.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, the original idea was to create this as a separate section in the main space Wikipedia article. There was some opposition, and this is the result. I certainly would support harbouring it in Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking back at it the main objections were it's one person's personal view and not reliably sourced and both seem to stand: it still uses mostly primary sources, so much that it is largely OR and synthesis. Of course this is not a problem for something in WP: space. Essays, guidelines and policies do not need sources.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree about that, but it's pretty useful information for general readers, who I think are much more likely to read Wikipedia than WP:anything. Perhaps someone should work really hard to find hard secondaries. Brews? - DVdm (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy WP:V, lists five circumstances to be satisfied in order that a "questionable source" be used as a source of information about itself. Every one of these five conditions is satisfied by Wikipedia:Formal organization. Without specific instances of statements from Wikipedia:Formal organization that are objectionable under these terms, the arguments about violating policy on secondary sources, WP:OR and WP:SYN are nonsense. Brews ohare (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to this as attempts to move it into mainspace have failed it's clear it will be in the WP: namespace for a while so it is best classified. As it says at WP:WES

"On Wikipedia, an essay is a page in the project namespace (Wikipedia:) that is written by one or more editors that typically addresses some aspect of working on or with Wikipedia. Such pages are categorized into Category:Wikipedia essays or a related subcategory."

Which clearly includes this. An essay can be on anything: it can offer advice, advance a viewpoint, or provide information. The main criteria for an essay is it's the work of one or more editors, outside of normal consensus, which this is. It's not guideline, policy or infopage as all of them require consensus before being accepted as such. Therefore it's an essay.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Blackburne: The header Essay you have added states:
"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints."
This description is entirely incorrect. The article contains no advice, opinions, norms, or minority viewpoints. As such, this header is entirely inappropriate and misguides any reader as to the nature of the article. You refer to the statement:
"On Wikipedia, an essay is a page in the project namespace (Wikipedia:) that is written by one or more editors that typically addresses some aspect of working on or with Wikipedia. Such pages are categorized into Category:Wikipedia essays or a related subcategory."
which of course applies to an essay, but does not mean that anything fitting this description actually is an essay. This particular article is an example that fits this description but does not fit the essay header and so is not an essay.
IMO, your insistence upon including this header serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Your justification for adding this mischaracterizing header is simply a confusion in your logic. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the quote again. First there is no limitation on what essays are: they are simply "works by one or more editors" on "some aspect of ... Wikipedia". After which "Such pages are categorized" into a essay category, i.e. with no exceptions. The purpose of doing so is to make it clear to readers that this is not official guidance, policy, process or help, as most pages in the WP namespace are. Everything in the WP namespace needs categorising, as this is in none of the official categories it's an essay. See also WP:ESSAY, which says the same more verbosely.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Any article can be fit into categories. That does not require a header, particularly an erroneous header. where is your support for the view that
"Everything in the WP namespace needs categorising, as this is in none of the official categories it's an essay."
That seems to be your idea, John. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not my idea, User:Rehevkor first mentioned it. The guidance above is from WP:WES and is clear: "Such pages are categorized into Category:Wikipedia essays or a related subcategory". I don't see what's hard to understand about this. WP:ESSAYS has the same information in more detail.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

John, here is the problem. The statement:
On Wikipedia, an essay is a page in the project namespace (Wikipedia:) that is written by one or more editors that typically addresses some aspect of working on or with Wikipedia. Such pages are categorized into Category:Wikipedia essays or a related subcategory.
says all essays have characteristics so-and-so. It does not say every page with these characteristics is an essay. What's more, nowhere is it said that an erroneous descriptive header must be applied to all pages with these characteristics.
Brews ohare (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What should be done?[edit]

All sources, primary or secondary, or whatever, use WP articles as the origin of the facts for their outlines of WP organization. The guideline WP can be used as a source about itself supports this use on WP itself. What other source is there to determine the details of WP organization? Do we need a secondary source to quote WP articles so we can repeat here that we have Adminstrators, ArbCom and Jimmy Wales?

The claim that this article contains advice or guidelines of any kind, nevermind my advice or my guidelines is wrong. There are no such opinions or suggestions. There is no personal opinion here and to my knowledge every statement is supported by direct reference to WP articles about its own structure. To label documented statements of what WP states to be its own organizational structure as WP:OR or WP:SYN to advance a position is policy misuse.

It is foolish to propose general guidelines as a platform for action with no examples of misinformation or bias. If any editor finds statements in this article contrary to WP's stated organization, or somehow controversial, then that should be presented here and corrected. That is the common sense way to fix this article, if it needs any fixing. Brews ohare (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above: for this particular piece, i.m.o. primary sources should be sufficient. This was discussed before, and some agreed while others disagreed. If there is no consensus to, based on primaries only, include it, then—alas—there's not much you can do about about it. Stalemate :-| - DVdm (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The full quote is "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself" (my emphasis), and that subsection is part of sources that are usually not reliable. Articles still need to be based on reliable secondary sources, and WP is not a reliable secondary source, about itself or anything else..--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
John, you have not addressed the questions asked here. Where can one discover the formal arrangements describing organizational structure of WP except on WP? By that I mean the answers to questions like: What is is the hierarchy at WP? Which official designees have what formally ascribed authorities? How are these designees selected, and how long can they hold office? What formal rules decide how they are held accountable for their actions?
All these questions can be phrased as "What does Wikipedia say about its formal organization regarding [this or that] topic?" Does one have to say in this WP article on formalities: "Source so-and-so quotes WP as saying " 'blah blah blah' " and provide a so-called secondary source, which is just a quote from the primary source WP? Does that make any sense at all?
If one asked evaluative questions like: "Is the de facto organization of WP what is described by WP itself as its de jure organization?" or "Is the organization of WP adaptable to issues that arise during its operation, such as the problem of keeping competent contributors interested?" or "Can WP survive with its present petrified oligarchical institutions?" then a secondary source that drew conclusions about such matters would be needed. The present article has no pretensions to even the formulation of such questions, never mind making any assessments. Brews ohare (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Essays need no sourcing[edit]

Continuing above thread

But it's not an article, so sourcing is not needed. That other editors can edit it does not stop it being an essay: any essay in the WP namespace can be edited by any editor. It tends not to happen as I think editors tend to respect other editors' views, and treat essays like long blog posts or newspaper editorials. Besides if you disagree with an essay you can always write your own. If an essay strays too far from WPs policies and philosophies it can be nominated for deletion and deleted or userfied, but this happens rarely and only in the most extreme of cases – it's not going to happen here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
John, this article is not an essay any more than Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief or Wikipedia:Identification. Rather, it is an information page belonging to Category:Wikipedia basic information. To quote Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays, "Essays typically contain advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." There is no advice offered here, and no opinions of any Wikipedia contributors, including myself. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief is an essay (check the essay box below), as well as a help page, while Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset is just a help page, i.e. part of the official help. The criteria is that essays are not policies, guidelines, help or other project pages. Such pages are the result of community process or discussion. Essays are usually the work of one or a few editors, i.e. they arise outside consensus, although they can be adopted as guidelines through the normal process.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Inasmuch as this page answers the questions: "What does WP say itself about its formal organization structure?" it obviously does not need any sources other than WP itself. Because of the restricted nature of its subject, this page is eminently qualified to serve as an article in main space, and could be incorporated without change in sourcing as part of the article Wikipedia itself. Brews ohare (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

External/internal links[edit]

I notice that a lot of links to Wikipedia pages are treated as external links. Is there a reason for this? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced most of the http links with direct WP links. Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Classification of WP:Formal organization as an information page[edit]

The page WP:Formal organization contains no opinion, assessment, or point-of-view, nor is it a proposal regarding changes in policies or guidelines. It consists entirely of what WP documentation says about WP hierarchy. Therefore it is proposed to classify this page, not as a guidance essay but as an information page. Are there any objections to this reclassification, or perhaps some clarifications that would clear the way? Brews ohare (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Comment: Here is how the information page template appears:
Information template
Brews ohare (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I have removed it as it inappropriately added this talk page into the category for information pages. I think editors can use the link above or below to see what the template looks like.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I've installed an image instead of the template to avoid this problem. Brews ohare (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment:
At {{Information page}} it says
"This header is for use on project pages which have widespread communal agreement as a neutral statement describing some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices."
And no, there is not widespread communal agreement that this is a useful information page, so it should not be labelled as such.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
John, you have not understood that this thread is intended to determine the extent of "communal agreement" for this reclassification, or if some changes in its content or wording would make it acceptable as an information page. Perhaps you could contribute some suggestions? Brews ohare (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Brews, it has my "narrowspread" agreement —see formal comment below— but the problem you face here, is how do you get widespread communal agreement without being reported for forum shopping? Looks like a stalemate :-| - DVdm (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This approach was suggested by WhatamIdoing. There is no other mechanism to establish a community consensus. The notion that this is "forum shopping" suggests somehow skirting some disciplinary issue, but that isn't the case here. It is just a piece of WP mechanics to reclassify a page.
BTW, thanks for your support here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the essay itself, I'm not experienced enough to say how it should be classified. But I've skimmed over the conversation above and it seems to me that User:Brews ohare keeps asserting that this is an information page because of its content, and User:JohnBlackburne keeps asserting that it is only an essay because of its classification. May I suggest: JohnBlackburne, what is the process by which an essay can gain enough widespread community scrutiny and consensus to become an information page? ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I can see a couple of ways. First if a gap is identified in the documentation by e.g. a discussion at a project page. There might be for example a dispute that keeps arising, that keeps getting resolved the same way, and so editors feel the need to document this so in future editors don't need to re-hash the same arguments. This might be done on an existing page (the FAQ of many pages, such as Talk:0.999.../FAQ), on a dedicated page such as Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals, or on a new page written for that purpose. Many guidelines arise this way I think, to fill a gap in the documentation, often forking off from a discussion on a project page.
The other way would that someone simply writes a page in WP space, which as it's not a guidance or official page is an essay. Over time this will be read by more and more editors, and as they do so they may contribute to it. Others will read it and remember it in discussions, and refer to it as they think it usefully describes an aspect of Wikipedia, and eventually they come to rely on it. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for example is a frequently cited essay in deletion discussions.
The latter is how this might become more widely known and used. It's already been the subject of numerous discussions in the last few weeks, and thousands of editors have seen it. So now perhaps wait and see if it becomes as useful and widely used by other editors, i.e. if others refer to it in discussions and add their own contributions to it. It can become part of the guidance while still an essay, leading maybe eventually to its adoption as part of the official documentation.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That seems reasonable to me. Would it be acceptable for Brews to promote the essay by citing it where it is directly relevant, such as answering newcomers who are confused about Wikipedia's formal organization? ~ Kimelea (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Blackburne: Demonstration of wide usage by editors of WP is not a criterion for reclassification. The classification of the material in this page as an "information page" should be based upon its content, not upon some vague impression generated over an unspecified time. As you point out, this page has been seen by thousands of editors. Its utility and accuracy is not in question. As pointed out at the top of this Talk page, this article has been scrutinized, and no significant complaints about content exist. It does not express assessment, opinion, or point of view, as do essays. Rather, it is an outline of WP documentation. In any case, the vetting process will continue, as it does with all WP pages. Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it should not be promoted until there's consensus about doing so. There's a page describing how to do this which I've only just read, at WP:PROPOSAL, the basic steps of which are: start an appropriate {{rfc}}, e.g. {{rfc|policy}}, post it on relevant notice boards, discuss, and then the on closing with Promote, No consensus, or Failed, tag it with the appropriate template ({{Infopage}} if passed, {{Essay}} if no change, {{Failed}} if failed). So it's far too early to promote it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Blackburne: The paragraphs you link concern proposals related to guidelines and policies that are, of course, very serious documents on WP. The reclassification of a simple factual outline of WP documentation as an {{Infopage}} is hardly in this category. Would you not agree that this is a nearly trivial matter? If not, what is the downside here that must be guarded against for the good of WP? Brews ohare (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From WP:PROPOSAL:

Discussion may be closed as either Promote, No consensus, or Failed. Please leave a short note about the conclusion that you came to. Update the proposal to reflect the consensus. Remove the {{Proposed}} template and replace it with another appropriate template, such as {{Subcat guideline}}, {{Policy}}, {{Essay}}, {{Wikipedia how to}}, {{Infopage}}, or {{Failed}}.

So yes, WP:PROPOSAL does cover infopages.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Brews, you asked me in here to give my opinion. I support your essay in principle as a useful piece of guidance, but I do think you're going the wrong way about getting it promoted. I've often seen guidance essays used in support of a point - OFTEN. Examples that I've seen frequently: WP:BRD, WP:AADD, WP:VNT, WP:WES. They have all been around for some time and not been 'promoted' to infopages, so it's really not personal. Your essay doesn't need promotion to be useful, and I think your insistence might not help your case in the long run. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Kimelea: I agree with you that this is going nowhere. Thanks for your kind interest. Brews ohare (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment:
Contribute to agreement with RFC proposal, as I personally agree that this thing is a neutral statement describing some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. - DVdm (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment:
There appears to be no stated WP process for attaching an "information page" classification to a page. I have decided to follow the process taken for Wikipedia:Articles on elections and Wikipedia:User account security, which consists of adding the information template with the "proposed template", and continuing comment in this RfC. Brews ohare (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Blackburne has reverted this process, deciding unilaterally to depart from the procedure followed with other pages that have become information pages. Brews ohare (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
See my comments above, in particular re the formal process for proposals at WP:PROPOSAL, or see the documentation at {{Infopage}}. Pages should only become infopages if there is appropriate discussion resulting in consensus for it. No editor should promote an essay to an infopage unilaterally.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Blackburne: You miscast the situation. As this RfC shows by its very existence, there is no attempt here to act unilaterally. Brews ohare (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
John, the WP:PROPOSAL process was meant for guidelines and policies, not for other types of project pages. (How do I know? Because I originally wrote PROPOSAL.) PROPOSAL is also meant to be a general set of suggestions that users adapt as appropriate, not a strict series of steps that must be mindlessly followed no matter what. For a page like this, which could be tagged as an essay, as an information page, or as no type of page in particular, an RFC is a perfectly reasonable way of inviting the community to comment on the question of how to tag and/or categorize the page. I'd suggest that you (all of you) spend less time talking about the bureaucratic procedures and simply share your individual opinion about how to tag the page and your reasons for holding that opinion. And then, having done that, stop bickering with each other so that other people will feel welcome to share their opinions. Come back next month and figure out what (if anything) everyone said. In between now and then, remember that WP:There is no deadline, not even for tagging this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: Sounds like good advice. My argument for reclassification is just below the RfC banner. Brews ohare (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: In the grander scheme of things, it probably doesn't really matter all that much. Bwrs (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to an article[edit]

Could this essay be converted to an article, say Formal organization of Wikipedia? The objective is to allow free linking to this page from other articles on WP.

So far, some objections have been raised that this article uses WP self-documentation as sources, and that violates some conditions about sourcing of articles. That objection is peculiar when the objective is to report what WP says about itself, as it seems definitely strange to require reference to some external source that quotes WP as a source in order to establish what WP says about itself, instead of directly quoting the the very same material. Moreover, a restriction to citing quotations in third party sources is restrictive, because not every pertinent piece of WP documentation is quoted verbatim by a third party. Brews ohare (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In brief, no. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No, for the reasons given above, and on Talk:Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Johnuniq: It would be helpful if you could provide a more detailed view of your reservations, as "in brief" conveys nothing about the origins of your disapproval.
Blackburne: WP is a perfectly satisfactory source for quotations that WP makes about itself, as is patently obvious. Outside, independent sourcing is necessary only to substantiate interpretation or opinion, none of which is included in this article. Brews ohare (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Brews ohare, this time :) It's not helpful to just say "no, you can't have it." On the other hand, it requires a lot of efforts to turn this page into something acceptable as a wikipedia article page. To expand on my early observation, the page reads like stuff you read on, say, Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy. What is acceptable is the summary of scholarly works like stuff in Academic studies about Wikipedia. One thing we can try (but myself not included) is to try to put some power-structure-materials to either Wikipedia or Community of Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
TakuyaMurata: Scholarly works do not discuss the organization of WP in any amount of detail, as they are concerned more about being "user manuals" or in assessing the accuracy of WP, etc. So it is not possible to provide an outline in any detail of WP organization by quoting scholarly works that quote WP as their source of info. The topics described in WP:Formal organization are (i) officers, (ii) their allotted power and discretion (iii) how they are selected and their terms, and (iv) a very limited amount of data, like how many admins over time. Now, in my opinion of course, these all are simply facts. They aren't all the facts, but they can be added to if editors want to do that. So I am curious to understand why it appears to you that WP:FormOrg is slanted in some ways? Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Scholarly works do not discuss the organization of WP in any amount of detail" – then it is not suitable for an article. Articles only exist (or only should exist) on subjects that receive significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:N. Doing so also ensures articles are neutral, as they are based on what reliable secondary sources say about a subject. Conversely, an article not based on reliable sources is biased as it instead contains whatever the editor thinks is notable from their cherry-picking of primary sources. And this can't be fixed: without reliable sources editors can't determine what should be included.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi John: So I can paraphrase saying "Admins can block disruptive editors" by citing this source, but I cannot directly quote Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which says "Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia" because it is not an article and because it is a "primary" source. What nonsense!
John, you say cherry-picking cannot be fixed: "without reliable sources editors can't determine what should be included." As if reliable sources cannot be cherry-picked. If we can figure out whether sources on Sarah Palin have been cherry-picked to provide a misleading picture, figuring out whether Wikipedia:Blocking policy has been cherry-picked is a piece of cake!! Brews ohare (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be nonsense to you but those are WP's core policies.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's how you yourself see them, John. If the policies are read with understanding instead of in the most narrow-minded literal fashion, of course they allow WP to be cited as a source about itself. If we take the opposite stance, "Wikipedia may never be used as a source about itself", then nothing of consequence can be written about the formal statements of WP organization or the formal statements of WP procedures inside WP, although that is exactly what is done by outside sources. How silly! Brews ohare (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, those are some of the core policies of WP. They are not optional, nor subject to your personal re-interpretation where you ignore the parts you disagree with. You've been told time and time again that this is not suitable for an article or guideline. On Talk:Wikipedia months ago. Above as you tried multiple times to get it promoted to an official guideline. On Talk:Wikipedia again in the last few days. And now again here. But no, your personal essays are neither good article material nor good guidelines. Please stop trying to promote them as such.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi John: I see you have adopted the role of WP spokesperson, offering warnings about "promotion" when what is involved is merely an attempt at discussion. There has been next to no discussion here, however, and you yourself have not discussed matters either, but simply reiterated your views with no indication of having thought about my comments at all. Earlier discussions (at the top of this Talk page) provided a bit more diversity of opinion.
However, there is no interest in this matter, so there is no likelihood of the absurdity of your position being exposed. It's a shame, it does WP no good, but so be it. Brews ohare (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

May I cut in with a suggestion? I agree with John that this draft is not ready for article space, but I do think that it is unthinkable, from a transparency point of view, that we do not have an article with that title in article space. We can use this draft as just that, a first draft. If Brews doesn't mind I would like to contribute to turning this into something that can be placed on article space. Brews, would you consider asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship to take it under their wings? On the face of it they may be interested in collaborating. Yaniv256 (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv: It is ridiculous indeed that WP has no article about its own organization. This "essay" is entirely facts, contains no opinion, and is documented using WP's own information about its structure. But it has met with unyielding resistance to any attempt to make it either an article, or an information page, or even to link it as a See also.. on the article page Wikipedia.
I see no prospect of changing this situation.
In my opinion, those controlling WP feel that the organization of the project is best left untold, particularly its unresponsive governance by a cadre of lifetime appointed, self-policing Admins beyond any other recall. Such inflexibility is contradictory to the public relations image of a flexible, democratic, populist system.
Even though WP:Formal organization is an essay, and is not allowed to be linked to many pertinent articles, it has about 80 hits a day. So it has some attention. Brews ohare (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Its companion piece Wikipedia:Editing environment describing the administration of editing disputes, again explained using WP's own documentation, receives about 13 hits a day. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)