DavidVeksler: Remove unsourced editorial footnote

2026-07-23T07:10:58Z

Remove unsourced editorial footnote

Can't load revision 24613

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */

2012-08-11T04:13:46Z

Governance

Can't load revision 14197

FormerContributor-78162cb3: influence

2012-08-11T04:01:09Z

influence

Can't load revision 14196

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */ expand

2012-08-11T03:59:35Z

Governance: expand

Can't load revision 14195

FormerContributor-78162cb3 at 03:11, 31 July 2012

2012-07-31T03:11:20Z

Can't load revision 14194

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */

2012-07-30T23:19:51Z

Governance

Can't load revision 14193

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */

2012-07-30T23:18:59Z

Governance

Can't load revision 14192

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */

2012-07-30T23:16:19Z

Governance

Can't load revision 14191

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */ expand

2012-07-30T23:08:37Z

Governance: expand

Can't load revision 14190

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */ off-wiki conduct

2012-07-30T22:56:41Z

Governance: off-wiki conduct

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 30 July 2012
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded in Florida in 2003 (and still governed by Florida law), and headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is led by a ten-member board of trustees, three of which are community-elected, two of which are selected by chapters, one is a board-appointed "community founder" seat occupied by Jimbo Wales, and four are board-appointed "specific expertise" seats. The rationale for an Internet-focused organization having chapters has always been suspect, but the WMF claims they are useful for negotiating moral and financial partnerships, setting up Wikipedia parties, communicating with the press in the local language, etc.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ#What_is_the_point_of_having_chapters.3F\|title=What is the point of having chapters?\|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref> Participation in the chapter selection of WMF board seats is limited to members of chapter boards. This process has in some cases not been particularly transparent, with confidentiality rules prohibiting the distribution of a list of candidates, or the provision of direct question-and-answer sessions between the candidates and chapter members.		Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded in Florida in 2003 (and still governed by Florida law), and headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is led by a ten-member board of trustees, three of which are community-elected, two of which are selected by chapters, one is a board-appointed "community founder" seat occupied by Jimbo Wales, and four are board-appointed "specific expertise" seats. The rationale for an Internet-focused organization having chapters has always been suspect, but the WMF claims they are useful for negotiating moral and financial partnerships, setting up Wikipedia parties, communicating with the press in the local language, etc.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ#What_is_the_point_of_having_chapters.3F\|title=What is the point of having chapters?\|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref> Participation in the chapter selection of WMF board seats is limited to members of chapter boards. This process has in some cases not been particularly transparent, with confidentiality rules prohibiting the distribution of a list of candidates, or the provision of direct question-and-answer sessions between the candidates and chapter members.

	Some of the major Wikipedias have a community-elected Arbitration Community that serves as a court of final appeal on matters such as conduct disputes, blocks and bans, removal of administrative tools, and granting and removal of CheckUser and Oversight tools. The ArbCom also sometimes decides matters involving child protection, mental health problems, suicide threats, defamation, certain kinds of real life harassment, or other situations in which privacy and legal concerns prevent open discussion on-wiki. Usually no rationale for these decisions is published to the community. The WMF staff manual has an "On-Wiki Threat Protocol" for dealing with such situations.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Policies\|title=Legal and Community Advocacy/Legal Policies\|publisher=Wikimedia}}</ref> The private handling of such matters by the ArbCom without any community scrutiny is controversial.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update_and_ratification/Archive_2#.22To_resolve_matters_unsuitable_for_public_discussion_because_of_privacy.2C_legal.2C_or_similar_concerns.22\|title="To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion because of privacy, legal, or similar concerns"\|publisher=Wikipedia}}</ref>		Some of the major Wikipedias have a community-elected Arbitration Community that serves as a court of final appeal on matters such as conduct disputes, blocks and bans, removal of administrative tools, and granting and removal of CheckUser and Oversight tools. The ArbCom also sometimes decides matters involving child protection, mental health problems, suicide threats, defamation, certain kinds of real life harassment, or other situations in which privacy and legal concerns prevent open discussion on-wiki. Usually no rationale for these decisions is published to the community. The WMF staff manual has an "On-Wiki Threat Protocol" for dealing with such situations.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Policies\|title=Legal and Community Advocacy/Legal Policies\|publisher=Wikimedia}}</ref> The private handling of such matters by the ArbCom without any community scrutiny is controversial.<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update_and_ratification/Archive_2#.22To_resolve_matters_unsuitable_for_public_discussion_because_of_privacy.2C_legal.2C_or_similar_concerns.22\|title="To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion because of privacy, legal, or similar concerns"\|publisher=Wikipedia}}</ref> The ArbCom has also controversially assumed jurisdiction to ban users for certain conduct that occurs off-wiki.<ref>{{cite web\|quote=While users' conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, the Committee may choose to consider off-wiki activities which are egregiously disruptive to the project in determining findings and sanctions.\|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph&oldid=184279166#External_conduct\|title=Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph\|date=14 January 2008\|publisher=Wikipedia}}</ref>

	Decisions on Wikipedia that fall outside the purview of the ArbCom are generally made by "rough consensus," a rather nebulous term referring to some sort of supermajority. Early in Wikipedia's history, these were called "votes for deletion," but the terminology was changed to "articles for deletion" to emphasize that the strength of arguments, rather than number of votes in favor, is what counts the most in these discussions. This would seem to be contradictory to the concept of decision-making by rough consensus, unless the rough consensus in question was that which established a particular deletion policy. Even then, the policies are vague enough that some discretion must be left to participants in individual deletion debates, unless a higher authority is to be allowed to decide. Policies can be changed by direct edits to the pages that no one reverts, or they can be made by formal proposal. Formal proposals tend to have a very low pass rate.		Decisions on Wikipedia that fall outside the purview of the ArbCom are generally made by "rough consensus," a rather nebulous term referring to some sort of supermajority. Early in Wikipedia's history, these were called "votes for deletion," but the terminology was changed to "articles for deletion" to emphasize that the strength of arguments, rather than number of votes in favor, is what counts the most in these discussions. This would seem to be contradictory to the concept of decision-making by rough consensus, unless the rough consensus in question was that which established a particular deletion policy. Even then, the policies are vague enough that some discretion must be left to participants in individual deletion debates, unless a higher authority is to be allowed to decide. Policies can be changed by direct edits to the pages that no one reverts, or they can be made by formal proposal. Formal proposals tend to have a very low pass rate.

Wikipedia - Revision history

DavidVeksler: Remove unsourced editorial footnote

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */

FormerContributor-78162cb3: influence

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */ expand

FormerContributor-78162cb3 at 03:11, 31 July 2012

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */ expand

FormerContributor-78162cb3: /* Governance */ off-wiki conduct