How would you briefly describe/label Wikipedia's political structure?

[Philomath]

Wikipedia has a structure that is similar to the structure of a government in many ways.

It has "functionaries", like administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, and WMF employees. It has an Arbitration Committee, which is roughly analogous to a Supreme Court.

It has elements of democracy (RfAs, WMF Board of Trustees elections) but some other distinctly non-democratic elements.

Consensus, at least in theory, is not a vote, administrators have the power to remove others from the project for any reason , and rules are selectively enforced and ignored in a way that far exceeds what would be acceptable in a real-world "liberal democracy".

What would you call Wikipedia's political structure, if it existed in the real world? I've considered different terms, like "authoritarian administrative state" or "bureaucratic oligarchy", but none of the terms I've thought of or read capture the essence of Wikipedia's structure as precisely as I'd like.

How would you describe it?

[journo]

Jimmy Wales said it himself
"1000 people who all know each other" run the site

It's something like an Oligarchy, is my opinion, although they do have pseudo-elections designed for unofficial insiders every once in a while. Bureaucrats determine adminship, are not bound to votes, and accept input from the "Wikipedia community".Whatever it is, it's nothing similar to publicly elected representatives as it has no meaningfully public elections or public accountability mechanisms. Although they do have a lot of transparency.

[SkepticalHistorian]

Mafia
Mob Rule
Dictatorship
Bigots
Narcissistic
Supercilious
Malicious
Arrogant
Snowflakes
Woke
Narrow minded
Devils
Knee jerks
Egomaniacs

[ericbarbour]

My my, aren't we angry today.

No one remembers Barry "Moulton" Kort, a major regular on the old Wikipedia Review forum. He tended to post doggerel, but had the perfect two-dollar word for WP: ochlocracy.

Mafia
Mob Rule
Dictatorship
Bigots
Narcissistic
Supercilious
Malicious
Arrogant
Snowflakes
Woke
Narrow minded
Devils
Knee jerks
Egomaniacs

[SkepticalHistorian]

My my, aren't we angry today.

No one remembers Barry "Moulton" Kort, a major regular on the old Wikipedia Review forum. He tended to post doggerel, but had the perfect two-dollar word for WP: ochlocracy.

Haha, excellent, thought that was WP:Orchiectomy

Certainly “mob rule… one level above tyranny”. ( — Plato)

But I “forgive them, for they know not what they do”. ( — Jesus)

[Carrite]

Jimmy Wales said it himself
"1000 people who all know each other" run the site

It's something like an Oligarchy, is my opinion, although they do have pseudo-elections designed for unofficial insiders every once in a while. Bureaucrats determine adminship, are not bound to votes, and accept input from the "Wikipedia community".Whatever it is, it's nothing similar to publicly elected representatives as it has no meaningfully public elections or public accountability mechanisms. Although they do have a lot of transparency.

That's not wrong.

t