On Apr 29, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The idea that openness for editing and protecting
articles from harm
are mutually exclusive is incorrect.
Many of the past stable versions proposals intended to remove that
interaction but the community, *not* the foundation, instead preferred
to wait for perfection from vaporware software rather than trying our
some short term exploratory improvements... so here we are, years
later, and nothing has changed in this area except the aggressiveness
with which the status-quo is protected continues to increase and with
it so must the dilution level of any proposed improvements.
The community is not an effective decision-making apparatus for big-
picture concerns. One need only look at the travesties that are our
verifiability and no original research policies to see the debacle
that takes place when the community attempts to legislate on a large
scale as opposed to in the form of local consensus. Given the
threshold for "consensus" these days, any objection that garners
significant traction will be a deal-breaker.
The express and institutionalized protection of anonymous editing is
sufficient to block change in this area. Removing that protection or
revising it might not be sufficient to cause a change, but it is
necessary. And, frankly, if Jimbo wants a large-scale and programmatic
change, he cannot simply complain to the community. There is no
mechanism in place for the sort of change he is asking for. If he
wants one, he needs to create it. We can't.
-Phil