Sam's policy suggestions

Get rid of the commmitees

They don't get much done, and often make things worse.

editable page ratings

I have been giving this idea a lot of thought. I think there should be a hierarchy of quality not unlike the current wikipedia:featured articles but multi tiered. Something like a series of 5 steps, 1 being vfd candidates / extreme POV articles in need of a rewrite/cleanup etc.., and 5 being "worthy of 1.0" articles which are indefinitely protected, w edits only made after consensus in the talk. These could be the sorts of articles capable of things like the disks and maybe even paper copy encyclopedias Jimbo keeps talking about. Each page could have its rank (maybe a number of stars or whatnot?) placed conspicuously upon it, along w a small link to where the voting on raising or reducing its status could take place (maybe on the talk page, w lists of articles of the higher ranks on the wikipedia name space?). The exact mechanism of all this isn't my forte, but I am quite certain it is generally a rather good idea to have some notice of level of quality placed upon the articles. Comments if you will, Sam [Spade] 17:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) (almost entirely copied from a proposal I made on User talk:Charles Matthews)

I like that, except perhaps that ranking the article could be a running average of user ranking, so that articles would not be at the mercy of any particular group. Christopher Mahan 21:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

can you explain that more in depth? Sam [Spade] 22:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see Christopher's point, but I'd propose something slightly different:

At a given time, every qualified & registered Wikipedian is given so many points. The minimum is set at 1 month or 75 edits (to pick a number that requires Wikipedians to have made at least a couple of edits a day -- that number is up for negotiation). Bots are excluded. By qualified & registered, I mean you have to open an account on Wikipedia & create a User page; people found to have multiple accounts & abusing them to get points lose their qualification. If this works, once every month more points are allocated based on the number of non-minor edits made to content articles (e.g., articles that are not Talk pages, or considered meta pages like this one).
You can cast your votes either for or against an article. There is a limit of how many votes one can cast concerning one article. Various types of articles -- redirects, Talk pages, etc. -- are excluded, & repeated voting for them may result in disciplinary action.
A negative score sends the article to VfD. A zero score means the article has not been rated. (Do you figure anyone is going to rate all 70,000 articles drawn from the US Census datbase?) Maximum score is 4 (achieved by some clever mathematical formula ;-), which sends it for review to Wikipedia:Featured articles.
Once at Featured articles, it is subject to another vote: if it passes the vote, the article is rated at a 5, & receives the protection Sam Spade proposes; if it fails, the article is regraded, & can't be reconsidered until either

a period of time passes -- say a month; or
it receives a required number of non-minor edits.

Does this sound workable? -- llywrch 04:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know if I like the idea of points, because there is the obvious incentive for some to attempt sockpuppeting. What if we made people pay a small fee to get their points? That would gather some $, and almost completely ensure against sockpuppets, except for the truely crazy. Sam [Spade] 04:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also I like the idea of being able to vote on every page I come in contact w. If we used your point idea nobody would vote on obscure stubs, and 10,000 people would vote on Arab-Israeli conflict ;) Sam [Spade] 04:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There has been a related conversation with more participants over at m:Article validation -- llywrch 22:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Continuous vote for admins

Admin votes should be continuous, allowing the community to change its concensus. If an admin drops below a certain level, they would be desysopped for a given period of time (3-6 months), wherapon they could request a fresh vote. All failed nominations and totals for admins voted out would be tossed, w a fresh start when they tried again. Sam [Spade] 04:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, but I feel that the time period for recertification should be longer (a year, perhaps). Also, I think staggered voting is a necessity. There are almost 300 admins. It would be easier to have a vote for 25 each month than all 300 at once. Acegikmo1 18:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. The 1 yr thing might be unpopular tho. Sam [Spade] 18:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would imagine that such a policy would not be popular among many groups (for example: admins, people opposed to bureaucracy, people who interpret the "no big deal" liberally, etc.). Why do you think the one year period would be unpopular in particular? Acegikmo1 03:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be very divisive if the voting was public. Grace Note 04:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

whacks head* Silly me! Of course it would. How about a page for admins, on which opponents could leave their name, with the notion being that if opponents outnumbered the number of supporters you originally had, you must reapply for sysopping? Have criteria for voting: maybe, 200 edits or three months. It would certainly encourage rogue admins to ensure they really do have the support of plenty of people before throwing their weight around.Grace Note 04:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trust network toll

Institute some variation of this, w onlyusers who have made some modest yearly (or maybe even one time?) donation allowed to participate. This would almost entirely rule out trolling the table, sockpuppets, etc... Sam [Spade] 05:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)