Let me say that I think much of what Mr. Poor says is well-reasoned and
intentioned, even though I'm going to focus on the points which I think are
incorrect.
On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
Cunctator correctly points out that an analogy could
be taken too far. But he
misses several points:
* like a Sunday School, the Wikipedia has a lofty goal (higher ideal)
* the enjoyment of peace resulting from not being hurt by others (golden rule)
* I refused to accept students in my class whose parents required their
attendance (no prisoners)
Rather, I said that it was a poor analogy. Yes, there are connections, but
there are also crucial differences that preclude doing too much reasoning by
analogy (
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm).
Cunctator, you're never going to call me
"Uncle Ed", because you're not one of
the kids. You are the paradigmatic example of the rational anarchist. I may
not agree with all your article edits, but I can work with you. I can't really
work with Lir and her ilk.
Is anyone going to call you Uncle Ed here at Wikipedia? I hope not. Mr. Poor
is essentially right in describing me as a rational anarchist, but I want to
make it clear that this is entirely situational; I only think anarchism is
to a reasonable degree possible in such a well-defined online space such as
Wikipedia. I don't think it's a reasonable real-world answer. It doesn't
really work well when people can be physically controlled.
<snip>
Wikipedia is not for children. It's run by adults, and nearly all of them are
men.
Does the fact that men are not children mean that
Wikipedia need no rules, no
"hard security"? Even anarchy requires guidelines or customs of some sort. If
everyone carries swords and knives, then you show an open hand as sign of
friendship when you approach another armed man, or you risk a sudden
skewering. That's a custom -- not a law.
There are no equivalents to guns or knives at Wikipedia.
<snip>
We have some customs. We need to review and codify
them. "Ignore all rules"
will have to go. "Please follow the rules or be blocked" will have to replace
it.
Doing so will destroy Wikipedia. Rather, the type of contributors will
steadily become limited to a certain type of person, which type will over
time become more and more limited.
<snip>
Here is a partial list of the customs or guidelines I
see as already in place:
* don't delete an entire article or insert random nonsense (no vandalism)
* don't alter other user's comments (no forgery)
* don't write partisan articles on controversial subjects (NPOV)
* don't post copyrighted material, except fair use
The only problem (other than the fair use thing, which is a different kettle
of fish) with these guidelines is that they are not equivalent. It's a lot
easier to determine if a page has been erased than if someone is being
partisan on a controversial subject. "Don't write partisan articles" is
about the same kind of guideline as "Don't write dictionary entries".
It's a
matter of degree.
Here are the 3 enforcement mechanisms:
* anyone can undo a change, thus reverting the vandalism, forgery or POV
violation (soft security)
* a sysop or above can ban an IP address
* developers can ban a signed-in user (not "authorized" but "can")
* Jimbo can ban a signed-in user
You forgot also:
* editing to improve entries
* peer pressure
* mentoring
the enforcement mechanisms that you yourself have used.
There's also the enforcement mechanism of denigrating other people, which
some people use.