Wikipedia talk:The need for coordination

A Council of Wikipedia (distinct from WikiProject Council) shall be created. The essay itself contains commentary as well as the proposal itself, so it is highly advised that all readers of this page read the essay in full before participating in the discussion. 08:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to be based on out-of-date information, and many of the problems have been addressed in an updated proposal here. Please discuss on this page, but based on the proposal over there. Several important changes have been made to the proposal over there:

• The types of documents the Council can create, in particular policies and guidelines, is more precisely defined and limited.
• In addition to an internal consensus within the Council, vote-count thresholds must also be met in order for a motion to become a legally valid document.
• WikiProject membership merely adds two seats to the Council, but this does not make WikiProjects constituencies in and of themselves and does not permit them to nominate representatives.
• Randomized constituencies have been created in order to avoid the problems of "virtual gerrymandering" arising from the old WikiProject system.
• The Unaffiliated Candidates Constituency is no longer a constituency itself, but merely adds eight seats to the Council elected from the randomized constituencies.
• Stringent WikiProject membership criteria have been established, ensuring that only the largest and best-organized may join.
• WikiProject members shall be granted the power to bring motions to the floor of the Council.
• Any support offices of the Council ("bureaucracy") may be removed if community consensus finds them to be unnecessary, redundant, or superfluous.

I'll accept marking this as failed. But nobody here seemed to read the updated proposal at all. User:Hut 8.5 mentioned that "WikiProjects will still choose members." No, they will determine consensus which must be countersigned by uninvolved administrators. Nobody has paid any attention to the changes, and I think the reason for this is that the old proposal's garbage was stuck in their head. I had updated the proposal, but to no avail as the hardline opposing editors did not even bother to read the charter. So their comments are definitely misguided.

This proposal will certainly be back, but in an updated form which will take into account all of the concerns of the posters here. I hope that by making the new proposal good from the start it will ensure a more positive image of this idea than "bureaucracy" and "WikiProject takeover." I know I have few supporters, but one's critics ultimately help one to improve. I will take into account the concerns of the Wikipedia community and, specifically, reduce the bureaucracy in this idea and eliminate the role of WikiProjects in this Council.

Even though this proposal has now failed, I do not view the idea of coordination on Wikipedia as being a complete failure. The lack thereof falls under this category. History shows that in areas without effective government - everywhere from the frontiers of massive empires at war to anarchist communes - order and civilization there are ultimately doomed to fail. While I do not defend this specific proposal any longer, we cannot keep ignoring the mistakes of the past in favor of our own whims. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 20:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again you're misreading my comment. Under the revised proposal certain Wikiprojects will send two members each to the council. That's what I'm objecting to. The process Wikiproject participants go through to select the representatives is irrelevant. Hut 8.5 21:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, please DON'T bring it back. There's no rule against making a dumb proposal, but there ARE rules against continuing to propose something the community has soundly and decisively rejected, as it can be disruptive. At this point, you've had two votes, one ending 1-to-18 against and one unanimously 0-to-8 against. The community has very clearly made its wishes known here, there's no serious reason to believe a third, fourth or fifth vote will change anything. For details, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and to an extent the essay WP:STICK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]