User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)/Constitution

Here is a (very) rough draft of what I think a Wikipedia constitution could look like. I have deliberately left vague certain tricky or contentious areas of governance; such as the role of Jimbo or how admins are to be selected or held to greater account. That is for you to work out, I can't nor wish to do everything;). Of course you are more than welcome to write your own !Constitutions or suggest changes and rewordings to this one. This is primarily to get the balls (and brains:) rolling.

Preamble

Wikipedia is an astounding achievement. Over the course of its existence, it has become the largest single organised source of free, publicly available, online information in human history. It has become one of the top ten most visited internet sites in the world. It has been widely cited, quoted, praised and criticized. It has become important enough that its governance is now a major issue. Many of the policies, institutions and practices which served Wikipedia well in its early days, are now inadequate due to its massive size, continued growth, and increasing complexity.

It is therefore necessary to adopt a more formal and centralize governing document which more clearly outlines how Wikipedia should be governed in order for it to better archive its goals, serve its readers and realize its true potential.

Article I: The Role of Jimmy Wales

1: Jimmy Jimbo Wales has done much to further Wikipedia in the past. For this he is entitled to some level of respect and gratitude. However, there is a clear community consensus forming that his unchecked powers have become a hindrance to the project rather than a help. So long as he retains the ability to remove content, admins and members at will, he remains a de facto Supreme Leader.

2: A referendum should be held to determine his exact role; Kept as apart-time god king, be made into a mere figurehead with influence but no real powers, or turned into Just another administrator with no more extra buttons than any other.

Article II: The Arbitration Committee

1: The Arbitration Committee ('Arbcom') shall remain the highest body for dispute resolution over issues concerning conduct.

2: ArbCom must become a truly independent body, elected in an independent way. It shall answer only to the WikiMedia Foundation Board of Directors and to the community of contributors (CoC) at large. Jimmy Wales shall no longer have any role in its selection. Likewise, any change in the number of seats on the committee or to the length of Arbitrators' terms shall be determined by the CoC via an open, democratic vote.

3: Its role shall be limited to disputes arising over conduct. It may review policies which are brought to it and make suggestions regarding them, but it shall have no jurisdiction over policy.

4: Should a content matter arise that must be addressed, then it shall refer this matter to the WikiProjects Council, as outlined below, and/or to the CoC at large.

5: Except in cases where an overwhelming need for privacy is clearly demonstrated, all ArbCom proceedings and deliberations should be public and open to the CoC.

6: Only the ArbCom, or in extreme cases the WMF board, shall have the power to permanently ban editors.

Article III: The Projects

1: Topic-level projects have become the workhorses of Wikipedia, generating much of its better content. Since the goal of Wikipedia is ostensibly to create a comprehensive and accurate reference work, it is only logical and inevitable that they should play a greater, formal role in Wikipedia's governance.

2: Towards this end, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council (WPC) shall have its role significantly expanded, from an advisory to a governing body. As such, the WPC shall be coequal in status to the ArbCom.

3: Each project shall elect two delegates to sit on the Council for terms of no more than two years. In order to qualify for seats on the WPC, a project must have at least twenty, unique active contributors as members.

4. The WPC shall conduct its business with transparency and openness at all times. And shall be held accountable to the members of the various projects and to the CoC at large.

5. Each project shall remain free to organize itself as it sees best to fulfill its mission. However, all projects are strongly encouraged to emulate the structures and practices of the Military History Project.

6: The Council will have the power to make official editing and content policies and style guidelines. The WPC shall be the main body for resolving content disputes.

7: Beyond the WPC, the projects themselves shall have a much greater formal role as well. They shall be able to develop their own means for mediation, dispute resolution and standards of content. The projects will thus become the laboratory for Wikipedia governance.

8: While policies and practices devised by the member projects may influence those of the WPC, when they come into conflict those of the WPC shall take precedence.

Article IV: The Community of Contributors

1: The CoC, consists of all members in good standing, defined here as having made at least 500, non-minor mainspace edits and 3 months of continual editing activity.

2: The CoC is vital to the continued health and growth of Wikipedia, without whose hard work it would not exist. Contributing members are entitled to certain basic rights, and must accept certain basic responsibilities as well.

3: They shall have the right to participate in all open discussions and processes (IE to freely express their thoughts, opinions and ideas and to vote).

4: The right to be warned before any blocks or bans are imposed, and to be confronted with any evidence of wrongdoing by their accusers.

5: The right speak out in their own defense and to appeal blocks or bans they feel are unjust.

6: The right to be treated with courtesy and respect within reason.

7: They shall have the responsibility to treat others likewise.

8: They shall be responsible for helping to build the encyclopedia by providing clear, well written, researched and verifiable text, fair use or free images or other media and ensuring that all articles maintain an encyclopedic tone and balanced coverage.

9: They shall be responsible for their own actions, irregardless of whatever rank or titles they may hold.

10: Equal treatment before the law for all contributors shall be one of the new fundamental principles. However, the right to make mistakes must be balanced by the responsibility to get it right.

Article V: Administrators

1: Administrators are the servants of the community, not its masters. They must be held to greater accountability. The abilities to block, ban and delete are a big deal and should be entrusted to as few hands as necessary.

2: Therefore, the powers that admins currently exercise, shall be divided amongst three access levels.

3: Rollbackers, shall also be granted the button to semi-protect pages, and will thus constitute a new class of Admin-lite known as Moderators.

4: Any member in good standing may request Moderator status, which will be automatically granted unless a compelling reason is shown to deny it.

5: Admins, shall no longer have the power to delete content and may only block a user for no more than a month. They may not extend blocks unless they can show a compelling reason to do so.

6. There shall be multiple ways to obtain Adminship. Likewise, there shall be multiple ways by which Adminship may be removed, temporarily or permanently. All of these processes must be open and transparent.

7: Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Bans are punitive and shall only be in the hands of trusted, high-level officials.

8: Bureaucrats, CheckUsers and Oversighters shall be combined into a single, System Operator (SysOp) access level. This level shall be granted only to the most senior and trusted members of the community, via an open and democratic vote by the CoC, for terms not to exceed two years.

9: Members eligible to perform the duties of SysOP must have several thousand mainspace edits over a period of years and successfully pass a vetting process. They must also meet the same age and disclosure requirements as ArbCom candidates.

10: SysOps shall have the power to delete content and ban users for up to one year. They shall not use Oversight and Checkuser abilities without clear and explicit authorization from the WMF, ArbCom or the WPC. They will be held accountable to those bodies and to the CoC at large.

Article VI: Outdated Processes and Policies

1: Older processes and policies, such as Request For Adminship, Articles for Deletion, Feature Article Candidates, Featured Article Review, The 3 Revert Rule, shall remain in effect until they are replaced or superseded by newer ones.

2: The WPC shall organize an extensive review of each to determine their effectiveness and suggest ways in which they can be improved or replaced by new alternatives or scrapped completely. It shall also be charged with devising such new alternatives.

Article VII: Amendments and Referendums

1: From time to time this document will need to be amended. The process for doing so should be difficult but not impossible.

2: Proposed amendments shall be vetted by the WikiProjects Council, and if approved submitted for a referendum by the Community of Contributors. A super majority vote, defined as at least 70%, will then be required for approval.

3: Referendums, as defined in this document, are major votes on issues a great importance. They must be prominently advertised and open to all members of the CoC in good standing. All due measures must be taken to ensure that they are fairly and transparently conducted.

4: In order for a referendum to be valid, a minimum number of 500 unique votes must be cast.

Proposed Amendments

Feel free to add your own here. Remember, wording is always vital!

Comments

Please keep them confined to the talkpage. That's what it's for after all. Thanks:)