Talk:Wikimedia Ethics/Overview

I keep coming back to process. I know that some of you find this irritating. I am personally more and more convinced that the solution lies within an analysis of the process underlying WP itself. So, please bear with me. The Fieryangel 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with you 110%. My diagnosis is that the processes employed by WP have evolved organically, without systematic planning, and are a tangled mess of competing and conflicting rules and practices.  Instead of an orderly process within a well-designed high-functioning system, the machinations on WP resemble nothing so much as a wild game of PaintBall.  —Moulton 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "competing and conflicting rules and practices" <-- There is a whole set of these mantras. If you really want to improve things, it would be useful to have a list of specific examples and proposals for how to improve things. --JWSchmidt 17:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

List of specific examples and proposals for how to improve things
My proposal, which originally appears in RfC/Moulton from a year ago, is to abandon the erratic and dysfunctional rules and sanctions regulatory model and advance a notch up the Kohlberg Ladder to a Community Social Contract Model. Elsewhere in these pages, I have provided a lengthy presentation of that recommendation. —Moulton 21:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement: WAS 4.250 10:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) increase ethics awareness
 * 2) three year term limits for admins
 * 3) elect a deliberative body with the specific task of investigating the English language Wikipedia in order to propose governance reform.