A proposal for improving policy and social dynamics on Wikipedia.
The proposal
I recently had a thought: What if we were to organize into editorial parties on Wikipedia? The idea is straightforward: People would join together in groups that would explicitly advocate for particular Wikipedia policy goals (but explicitly neither main namespace article goals, nor meatspace political goals). I can imagine, for example, an Inclusionist Party: Members declare not only that they are inclusionists, but that they are committed to working together to change the processes and policies of Wikipedia so that they are more inclusionist.
An absolutely essential, indispensable part of this proposal is that we adopt a rule to the effect that there shall be no policy or practice according to which new parties are prevented from being formed. Such a rule is intended to prevent one-party states. So the proposal is not best thought of as starting an Inclusionist Party only, but at once at least two or three parties: say, Inclusionist, Deletionist, and Verification Parties.
Another part of the proposal is that parties would be forbidden from making any statements about particular articles, but only about policy pages. This would continue to be regarded as brigading. The proposal is absolutely not to allow people to organize in order to favor particular edits on articles; I do not want to change the Wikipedia editorial process itself. (And I certainly wouldn't want it subject to a party apparatus.)
Parties would also be absolutely forbidden to harass individual opponents, whether of other parties or of unaffiliated individuals. There would have to be strict behavioral guidelines governing such abuse.
Doubtless, a fuller proposal would have to have a number of other such rules that would mitigate possible issues.
Arguments in favor
There are some simple yet strong arguments that editorial parties are a good idea and should be permitted.
Argument 1. The WikiProject precedent. This is perhaps the strongest argument. Whether you know or approve of it or not, there have been WikiProjects in the past that operated somewhat like editorial parties. Some are active, including the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (on Wikipedia, WikiProject Inclusion). Among the unactive or quiescent ones are WikiProject Deletion, WikiProject Wikipedia Reform, Wikiproject ArbCom Reform Party, and WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. WikiProject Inclusion—of which I am now a member, why don't you join, too?—explicitly tells members to "notify your comrades" about relevant discussions and "argue for Inclusion at relevant Village pump discussions." That's coordinated policy advocacy using partisan language, and it's been tolerated for nearly twenty years.
Argument 2. From general principles. Wikipedia works best when people come together to advance shared goals, as and when they can; that is essentially how a wiki works. With competing groups of editors, deliberation on important issues of editorial policy would become much more focused and productive. On Wikipedia articles, we collaborate on text on which we try to reach agreement. But when it comes to broad policy proposals, the challenge is not to arrive at agreement about which wording most accurately and neutrally describes reality. Rather, the challenge is inherently political, i.e., it involves motivating enough people to reach agreement on collective action. In a situation in which decisions are made in a more or less democratic fashion (whether or not it is fashionable to call the process "democratic"), what is needed is precisely a way to organize people into large groups. Such groups in a political context are called parties (or coalitions). While we do not have a state as such, we have a community governed by editorial policy. Thus what we need, in order to organize effective and sustained policy reform, is editorial parties.
Argument 3. From the lack of any method of systematic change. A second argument is that Wikipedia currently lacks any effective way to organize systematic change on Wikipedia. As I have argued at length, Wikipedia is now deeply dysfunctional and desperately in need of basic, commonsense changes. Without a way to organize systematic change, it is difficult to bring it about. Editorial parties would solve this problem by organizing like-minded people to pay attention to and participate in important votes. A bloc of voters, which is what a party is, would be a more powerful force than the disorganization we have at present. And if the concern is that one party would come to dominate—indeed, one-party states are one of the worst outcomes of anything that begins as a nominal democracy—then the response is that we must ensure, by adopting a fundamental policy, that new parties can always be organized. That is why such a principle is part of my proposal.
An example recently appeared at the village pump: "'Notability' really is a terrible name," someone wrote, because our criteria for inclusion are simply not well described by the word "notability." Someone responded, "I agree with you. Notability is a dumb name. However, there's never going to be a consensus to change it." That's probably true. But if there were editorial parties, good ideas that have been overlooked for years might finally get a champion, and then a fair hearing.
Argument 4. Solves the problem of ignorance of consequential decisions. Over the years, deeply consequential decisions were made on pages spread throughout the system. Imagine if the U.S. Code were compiled this way: Whoever wants to can go to any page associated with a particular section (with no further organization is allowed!) can do so. There's a talk page...use it. There are votes taken, which are often not announced anywhere else; mostly, you just have to be paying attention. The complaint here is not that Wikipedians are disenfranchised and have no say in the system. The complaint is that exercising one's right to help guide the system is made artificially difficult under the current system.
Against this, someone might point to the Village Pump (policy) as an example of an open page that is used to announce issues. But this just does not do the job. (a) This page does not do only (or even mainly) that; it's a rather noisy place, if all you're trying to do is determine when policies discussions are taking place and are of interest. (b) The page is open to all approaches. By contrast, insofar as we are seeking to participate in policy decisions, we want to be organized by parties, because people who think as we do about policy approaches will be much better at surfacing the relevant votes and discussions.
Responses to objections
I can imagine several objections. Let's address them.
Objection 1. "This is canvassing." Yes and no. Insofar as the proposal involves organizing people to vote a certain way on important issues—as parties do—it is literally canvassing according to the dictionary definition. But, insofar as Wikipedia makes canvassing inappropriate by definition because it "is generally considered disruptive behavior," the proposal is that we make a carve-out from the current definition of canvassing so editorial parties are not officially regarded as canvassing. So, yes, you can say that what is being proposed is would be canvassing if it were not approved. But, no, it would not be illicit canvassing if it were approved. The question then is: Should it be approved?
Note that none of the reasons cited against canvassing on WP:CAN is a good reason to block a system of editorial parties. (a) Canvassing compromises normal decision-making processes. This would not be the case in a system in which competing editorial parties were each trying to "get out the vote" on their own party pages. It is true that the decision-making process would change, but this would be a desirable change, by my argument. Simply saying that it violates the current rule against canvassing is idle. We can make an exception. Maybe we should. (b) Canvassing is off-wiki coordination. Perhaps so, but that is not what is in view here. Unlike ordinary political parties, editorial parties would be required to operate in the open. It would be coordination, of course, but it would be on-wiki coordination.
Objection 2. "Wikipedia is not a democracy." I am, of course, aware of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. But the idea that Wikipedia is not a democracy is paradoxical at best. The fact of the matter is that a great deal of what goes on is determined by what is hoped to be (but often is not, considering the presence of successful sockpuppetry) a fair democratic vote. The dictum that "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is not original with me, in case you were wondering; it goes back to 2005, near as I can tell. I remember, when I first saw it, thinking that it is a little bizarre and not a helpful addition to WP:NOT. Attempting to characterize the kind of governance system Wikipedia had (and now has—it has changed) by a single label drawn from classical political philosophy is bound to be an oversimplification, of course. So "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is true as far as that goes.
What is incorrect, and unhelpful, are some of the things people infer from the dictum. For example, it's just wrong to suggest that it is important to the constitution of Wikipedia that there can be no binding votes. Of course there can be, and there should be. That's how we get administrators, for example. An often-cited counterexample is that Wikipedia articles, when there is a long dispute and there must be a "closer" after a discussion and one or more votes, the closer is supposed to follow the rules and overrule a majority when necessary. This is true, but it doesn't go far. The problem is that the closer is expected to pay close attention to everything that took place in the debate, and ultimately it does indeed often come down to majority rule, because the rules are so often open to different legitimate interpretations.
None of these points provides any grounds to reject the proposal of editorial parties.
Objection 3. The entrenchment objection. I can anticipate the following objection: "Parties would entrench ideological blocs rather than encourage good-faith collaboration. Right now, editors at least have to engage with arguments on their merits. Parties would turn every policy discussion into a headcount." Realistically speaking, this might be the case, at least on those issues on which (a) parties care (they won't care about everything) and (b) they don't negotiate to an agreement, which is also an important part of democratic processes. But sometimes, it will be true.
My response to this is that it is unobvious that it is a problem. It sounds like a mark of dysfunction, but notice something. If it is a problem at all, the problem is the failure to progress toward a collective decision, when such progress is expected and preferable. Yet at present, while there might not be entrenched positions, the status quo is almost always entrenched and incapable of repair. Thus, if you think this is a problem, that is ironically enough a reason to support the editorial party proposal. It would be weak, moreover, to argue that partisan debates will replace good-faith arguments on the merits with partisan talking points. There is no reason to think this is the case. Besides, if I am a party member, I can embrace my party's arguments in good faith; and I will not use them if I think I have a better one.
Conclusion
Editorial parties are not a radical proposal. They are a modest generalization of what Wikipedia already tolerates. WikiProject Inclusion has organized editors around a shared policy goal, coordinated their participation in deletion and Village Pump discussions, and maintained a membership roster for nearly twenty years, without sanction. What I am proposing is simply that we acknowledge this practice, extend it to other policy domains, and give it a proper institutional framework with safeguards against abuse.
The case for doing so is straightforward. Wikipedia's policy apparatus is, by design, difficult to change in any organized way. Consequential decisions are scattered across hundreds of pages, surfaced only to those who happen to be watching. Reform energy dissipates because there is no legitimate way to coordinate it. Editorial parties would solve these problems by giving like-minded editors a transparent, on-wiki means of organizing sustained attention to policy—while the requirement that new parties can always form would prevent any single faction from capturing the process.
The alternative is the status quo, which is largely paralyzed by inaction.