I want elections on TE

[blr_p]

How would anyone know if anything else works if not tried out?
May be good may be bad, bit no one knows for sure.

I will bet it will be NOT be better than currently, as cranky explained below.

What happens when people who have and freely support such weird concepts of logic and technology are asked to vote? And that, for people who will run this board? It's OK to vote for a favorite hard drive manufacturer or video card. Let's not expand the scope. And you can't have a 'restricted democracy'. That is even worse. If it's open, it's open, if it's not, then it's not. 500+ posts, 1000+ reps whatever - you'll then have people working up reps and post counts to get into the inner circle.

TE is not a democracy, its a privately run show !

..and i've no problems with the current setup whatsoever.

Once democracy starts , quality of TE will fall.

Section Mods would be divided into Numerous camps

I don't want that .

Absolutely agree, you will get cliques and camps and then the whole point as a fora for the exchange of information is lost.

The clued up will quit right around when it becomes apparent.

 

[SharekhaN]

I will bet it will be NOT be better than currently, as cranky explained below.
TE is not a democracy, its a privately run show !

If you have a complete change of structure, the sytem goes through anarchy before it stabilizes. I am not saying, we go ahead and replace each and every one with mods that people elect. That was be nuts to do such a thing.
And who said anything about bringing in a democracy & what makes you think that TE is not democratic already. Loosely translated Democracy is where the people have power. People have freedom of speech. I can openly critisize a mod here. I can post whatever I want.Our opinion and thoughts are heard. So what is missing. Nothing.
Stop thinking this as a complete alternative to the current setup and see it as an extension to the same. Maybe you will be able to see it in a different light.

 

[Party Monger]

I want to be in the election commission..

 

[Renegade]

Its not something to add to the current discussion but I really love the following from the Wikipedia page. I like their emphasis on creative discussion.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Community

The above policies are about Wikipedia's content. The following policies apply to Wikipedia's governance and processes.

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper, such as when electing the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post.

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. You could also remind the user in question of Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks in such a situation. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

Resist the temptation to change Wikipedia just to prove a point.

Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users.

Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems.[6] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism.

 

[blr_p]

what makes you think that TE is not democratic already. Loosely translated Democracy is where the people have power. People have freedom of speech. I can openly critisize a mod here. I can post whatever I want.Our opinion and thoughts are heard. So what is missing. Nothing.

Unless you're a shareholder in TE you have no say how things work.

Yes you could suggest all you want but there is no obligation from TE to do what you or what any other non-shareholder says.

Stop thinking this as a complete alternative to the current setup and see it as an extension to the same. Maybe you will be able to see it in a different light.

OK, you are suggesting 6 month terms for mods, because you think it will make things more 'democratic' and suposedly increase participation.

It sounds like a solution looking for a problem when one does not exist at least in my experience.

TE does things when TE feels the need to do so as TE knows better than anyone else what is required.

 

[kauzy]

I love the way it is.. the mods are really cool.. I don't want any elections..

 

[SharekhaN]

Unless you're a shareholder in TE you have no say how things work.
Yes you could suggest all you want but there is no obligation from TE to do what you or what any other non-shareholder says.

And I agree. And thats how it should be. And I know what the status is. Dont be under an impression that I want to throw TE in to an anarchy and force changes where none are needed for now.

OK, you are suggesting 6 month terms for mods, because you think it will make things more 'democratic' and suposedly increase participation.

It sounds like a solution looking for a problem when one does not exist at least in my experience.
TE does things when TE feels the need to do so as TE knows better than anyone else what is required.

So that is no problem. All it was ever was a topic to speak on. There is no vested interst for me to make things better for TE. I know TE can take care of it self and it does not need me or you to run things.
Having the point of TE being problem free, sure, I agree as it is, there is no problem, but that is no indication of weather things could be better. I am also not saying that elected temporary section mods are how things will get better, but hey, I am atleast giving my suggestions here. That is the least I can do.

 

[Vij]

And who said anything about bringing in a democracy & what makes you think that TE is not democratic already. Loosely translated Democracy is where the people have power. People have freedom of speech. I can openly critisize a mod here. I can post whatever I want.Our opinion and thoughts are heard. So what is missing. Nothing.

Unless you're a shareholder in TE you have no say how things work.

Yes you could suggest all you want but there is no obligation from TE to do what you or what any other non-shareholder says.

@blr_p

What made you think that sharekhan thinks otherwise

I always felt that section mods are expected to be one of the active participants in their section and new people bring fresh ideas.

Thats my point and it is a generalized view and not against anyone personally. You can do this without open elections . Perhaps, the thread title needs to be changed

 

[blr_p]

What made you think that sharekhan thinks otherwise

I posted that to show TE is not a democracy, thats all.

He thinks its democratic but it really isn't because of the reasons mentioned and i'm cool with that.

 

[Vij]

I dont know why, but being a mod is not a glamorized/power position Most of the team is old timers, and in a way democratically selected by the previous team. (Think of it as a Rajya Sabha member)

No, its not a glamorized position, but it is an important one.

Being a moderator in a forum you love and browse every day of the year, how can you not love it ?

People who call it a thankless job are lying or just don't enjoy being on TE as much as some of us do.

Oh and btw, it also helps in nailing some freelance-writing jobs. I daily spend upto 3 hours commuting and sometimes I write articles(yes, even me ) to pass time. Some employers seem to prefer the moderators in technical forums

I posted that to show TE is not a democracy, thats all.

He thinks its democratic but it really isn't because of the reasons mentioned and i'm cool with that.

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean "free for all" approach. But I get what you mean. Cool!

 

[thetoxicmind]

Community

The above policies are about Wikipedia's content. The following policies apply to Wikipedia's governance and processes.

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper, such as when electing the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post.

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. You could also remind the user in question of Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks in such a situation. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

Resist the temptation to change Wikipedia just to prove a point.

Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require its users to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users.

Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems.[6] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy

Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism.

Definitely applicable here, a few I would harp on.

 

[blr_p]

But personally, I would like to think that a section mod must make atleast 'two' relevant threads a week, dealing with any topic in his section.

Being a mod i think requires primarily one to have good admin skills. To be good at it is time consuming. I think this is already a pretty taxing job and if you get one that can do just this part well then you're lucky.

Now in addition to also be competent and make 'two relevant threads' as you suggest is perhaps asking for too much. Rather i think its upto the members to do that.

Tons of members, vs just one mod in a section

Isn't that easier and perhaps more feasible?

The natural progression in many forums that i've seen is the most knowlegeable usually get invited to be mods and thats perhaps why you think mods ought to make relevant threads but thats the foum getting lucky to have ppl that would not mind being mods as well.

 

[thetoxicmind]

^ You couldn't have put it any better.

 

[Renegade]

Being a mod i think requires primarily one to have good admin skills. To be good at it is time consuming. I think this is already a pretty taxing job and if you get one that can do just this part well then you're lucky.

Now in addition to also be competent and make 'two relevant threads' as you suggest is perhaps asking for too much. Rather i think its upto the members to do that.

Tons of members, vs just one mod in a section

Isn't that easier and perhaps more feasible?

The natural progression in many forums that i've seen is the most knowlegeable usually get invited to be mods and thats perhaps why you think mods ought to make relevant threads but thats the foum getting lucky to have ppl that would not mind being mods as well.

Though your point is correct but I agree with vij. A section mod is there to promote the section, that is his primary responsibility. This is why we tried to match the sections to their competencies. Overall moderation, which is time consuming and draining, can be done by Global mods.

 

[blr_p]

A section mod is there to promote the section, that is his primary responsibility. This is why we tried to match the sections to their competencies.

If thats TE's official position then I stand corrected.