Election reform, Wikipedia style

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Election reform, Wikipedia style

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:58 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ember_2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =858408670

Problem: The number and quality of candidates for their yearly elections to the Arbitration Committee is falling to the point they are running the risk an unsuitable candidate might be elected (they had only eight viable candidates for eight vacant seats last time around).

Solution: Cut the size of the Committee from 15 to 13, and claim this represents no issue because "apparent workload is down" and might even improve efficiency (both claims immediately contradicted by multiple sitting Arbitrators).

This is Wikipedia reform in action. No deep dive into the reasons for the dearth of suitable candidates. No mention of the fact that even suitable candidates keep turning out to be unsuitable, as detailed here with the early resignation of one of that eight......

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=769

Also nice to see them admitting they have no problem rigging their election system to ensure it cannot be truly representative of the will of the people. They already have a safety system whereby nobody who gets below a certain level of support is given a seat. The emergence of a Trump style candidacy last year however, a truly awful individual who nonetheless polled highly due to the dearth of suitable candidates and as a dumb smash the system protest vote, has clearly rattled them.

It is all rather ridiculous, because the only threat the bad candidate posed, given the Committee operates through consensus/majority, was in him being able to find dirt on his enemies in the secret vaults. That and the sheer embarrassment of him holding the office. And if that is truly the will of the people, who are this entirely unelected and much smaller group of the people participating in this reform proposal, to deny them it?

Post Reply