[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

[Poor, Edmund W]

> Christopher and Kelly,
> 
> I know what you're saying, and I don't think anyone on the 
> Foundation-L list would endorse anything like regulation or 
> being on the hook legally.
> 
> But this clearly should be added to the wake up calls -- 
> "SOFIXIT" does not cut it anymore. Wikipedia cannot enjoy the 
> bragging rights of a "Top 40" web site without changing its 
> quality standards to match.
> 
> I'm not convinced the Article Rating feature that is waiting 
> in the wings is the right or efficient way to do it. But we 
> have to get closer to the "1.0" solution. It's time.
> 
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)

I have long said that Quality (i.e., accurate, unbiased articles) will
be our main challenge. Not finding enough volunteers.

As we scale, our processes will have to change. Letting any anonymous
person with Internet access edit "any page, any time" is an important
egalitarian value. But it conflicts with our obligations to our readers.


At the very least, we need a smoother, more effective mechanism for the
targets of "slam biography" articles to remove misinformation. It should
not take an article in USA Today and several days of legal action.

Our own internal squabbles seem also to require massive publicity (this
list, IRC, web site notices like RFC) and lengthy quasi-legal arbcom
procedures. Even for non-libel issues, like whether evolution should be
considered an "unguided" process.

The idea that anyone's opinion is potentially as good as any one else's
is a GOOD IDEA. But the idea that everyone's opinion is always just as
good as any one else's is a BAD IDEA. Some people just don't know as
much - or as well - as others. 

We need to find a way to deal with this situation. Holding a straw poll
on the talk page, and calling it a "consensus", and giving a small ad
hoc group the power to enforce their "consensus view" (merely because
they show up and vote) is a formula for failure. It lets a small group
of people act like a mob and suppress all mention of points of view held
by people who refuse to accept the "consensus".

Censorship is not the answer. Neither is suppressing dissent by main
force. So what *IS* the answer.

Ed Poor
(taking a wiki-break until he gets his head straight)