Wookieepedia:Inq/The Image Problem

Wookieepedia &gt; Inquisitorius &gt; 

(Before reading any further, please understand that I do not want to be an Inquisitor, at least not at this time.)

I've been trying to think up a solution to the Inqs' image problem. It seems to me the issue here is not the name, or their power (which is clearly minimal), but their perceived exclusivity. Currently the process for accepting new Inqs is not clear, which could quite justifiably lead some to suspect them of cronyism.

So let me suggest this: anyone who takes issue with, or complains about, the Inquisitorius should instead be encouraged to join the Inquisitorius, provided that they meet a few reasonable criteria (see below). I'm quite serious. In fact, there could even be a template for User:Talk pages: "Join me, and together, we can end this destructive conflict! &mdash; Because of your obvious commitment to Wookieepedia's quality, the Inquisitorius has extended an invitation of membership to you."

Since FA status affects everyone, naturally the Inquisitorius should be open to a diverse group of users. Really, it should be a fairly large organization of "Wookieepedians Who Are Sufficiently Concerned about Making Wookieepedia All It Can Be That They Are Willing to Make Some Tough Choices." I can't think of a valid reason for current Inqs to oppose the notion of a much more inclusive Inquisitorius. Of course, lots of Inqs would make IRC meetings difficult, but who says IRC meetings are needed? Inq-only votes can just as easily be conducted in the Inq forum.

The criteria for joining should not be unattainably high. Anyone serious enough about the Wook to meaningfully devote a lot of time deserves a shot. Certainly, anyone who could make a good showing on (if not actually win) WOTM deserves serious consideration for Inqship. Maybe something along these lines:
 * 1) User has demonstrated an ability to transcend Article Favoritism and be truly objective.
 * 2) User has demonstrated an ability to behave in a civil manner most of the time.
 * 3) User has not been banned more than ___ times in the past year. (This allows for users to reform.)
 * 4) User has been a Wookieepedian for at least ___ months (6?).
 * 5) User has a respectable number and ratio* of substantive, useful edits. (*=Respectable would need to be defined, of course.)
 * 6) User has contributed meaningfully to at least one Improvement Drive, Featured Article, or Wookieeproject.
 * 7) User agrees not to contest previously established Inquisitorius guidelines for FA removal.

Whatever the criteria are, they need to be clear (obviously) and they need to represent the Inq candidate's commitment to ensuring that only the most deserving articles remain labeled FAs. Candidates should be able to nominate themselves and could be voted in both by Inqs and non-Inqs, but perhaps with Inq votes somehow counting more.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a more inclusive Inquisitorius will significantly diminish the strength of the "This article's fine!" argument because those who make it, yet won't join the Inquisitorius, will therefore have demonstrated their fear of change and thus their misconception about what a wiki is.

If we don't do something, then the entire notion of Feature Article removal&mdash; whatever the committee is called&mdash;has the potential to split Wookieepedians and sabotage our team effort. I propose the above as an effort to avert that. I look at other dead and/or chaotic Wikis and I cringe. I cringe, Mr. Mayor.

Anyway, I apologize if I come off as trying to "reinvent the wheel," and surely some of what I have yammered about above is unworkable for reasons I, a lowly non-Inq, do not yet understand. But I think I'm right when I say that the key to minimizing anti-Inq whining is being, or at least seeming, more welcoming.&mdash; Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)