Daniel Mayer wrote: > Because of this and similarly difficult users we have had (and still have), I > make a /strong/ request that some type of user agreement message be added to > each edit window. It could state something like the following; > "By pressing save you indicate that you agree to the > rules and conditions of using this website" > 'rules and conditions', as I've stated in previous emails, would be a [in a > new window] link to a simplified version of the policy page with just the > basics; NPOV, 'we are an encyclopedia', no copyright violations and > Wikipetiquette. > Without this, users only imply they agree to follow Wikipedia policy due to > the fact that they use the server and software (I'm thinking of social > contract theory here). I don't think the implied agreement/social contract > set-up works anymore due to the size of our user-base. We need something more > explicit and dare say binding (in theory at least). > -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) > See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract I heard something somewhere approximately: ~ Just powers are derived from the consent of the governed. ~ I think it was Jefferson in the U.S. Declaration of Independence but it has been long since middle school civics. I think your suggestion above has mucho merit as long as we achieve clear definitions, due process, and uniform application. Somebody suggested a short user/contributor bill of rights as well. Ed's analysis and suggestions seem (to me) quite insightful, applicable, and easily mergeable with your concepts above. I think you are somewhat incorrect regarding the size causing the problem. In my view, it merely makes the noise unbearable. I see the root in a classic fallacy pattern resulting in a destructive (to the community machinery) positive feedback loop. New users and old hands alike think to themselves: "Others do not follow the social contract, why should I?" Positive feedback (used in the engineering sense not the behavorial reinforcement sense) is established as others observe the growing infractions and the problem grows ever more rapidly until uncivilized behavior is the norm and the "community" fragments. Steady state is achieved when as many people are leaving as are arriving. We may be at or close to this point. The material Stephen pointed at (on meatballwiki?) seemed very excellent and correct to me. IIRC, he placed us somewhere between 16 and 18 on the scale of 20 observed phases of wiki community life cycles. I also like Erik's idea of documenting the prevailing "consensus" by voting. gnome.org has a public voting process which they seem to think works to avoid stuffing the ballot box but it may be based upon a public key infrastructure. As Elian and others have pointed out we need to start resolving some issues. Alas, this would require the self discipline to abide by the expressed documented will of the prevailing voting majority unless Mr. Wales vetos some truly abhorrent tyranny of the ignorant, irresponsible, unwashed masses found here such as "no profanity, blasphemy, or porn in the user account names" referendum which I would immediately submit to the English community. Say, I also liked your reorganization proposal for the mailing lists. It seemed; to me; well thought out, symmetrical, and logical. In closing I would like to emphasize that I think we first need the clear definitions, ratification, due process and equality before the community policy hammered out before we implement the boilerplate. Regards, Mike Irwin