[WikiEN-l] banned vandalism reverting

[Steve Bennett]

On 12/4/07, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> So much for Wikipedia as even a faint shadow of democracy.

Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Never has been. It's a despotic anarchy.

>Who cares if banned users vote?
> They aren't damaging the encyclopaedia by participating
> in votes. And if their views are extreme, then may I suggest that they will
> also be very much in the minority.

I'm not sure if you're saying we should go out of our way to let them
vote, or just not go out of our way to stop them voting. Probably the
letter is correct - we certainly don't need to attempt to get their
views represented.

> If a banned user reverts vandalism, that's a positive. Undoing the revert is
> just stupid.

This is the classic troll wedge. Some people will say "they're banned,
we want nothing to do with them". Others will say "they're not
bothering me, let them stay". There will always be a line. If we allow
them to revert vandalism, then they will want to be able to correct
typos. If we allow that, they will want to be able to add useful
content. Then they will want to be able to participate in RFC's etc
etc. Then why did we bother banning them?

(In general, I hate "slippery slope" arguments. But in my experience,
this slope genuinely is slippery.)

Steve