[Wikipedia-l] Feature Proposal: Certification

[Toby Bartels]

Erik Moeller wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>You seem to be using the word "cabal" here in a sense that
>>is neither derogatory nor ironic.  I find that highly disturbing.

>You may find it disturbing, but the truth is that there are people like
>Jimbo who can make high level decisions, and there are sysops that have
>more power than ordinary users. Many of these decisions already happen in
>places that most people don't know about (e.g. the mailing list). Glossing
>over the truth doesn't make it go away: there is a Wikipedia cabal.

If you're going to take this realist position towards the cabal,
then you should use the word in a derogatory way
(assuming that you don't want to disturb me, that is,
I presume that in reality you don't care if you disturb me).
For example: Jimbo can make high level decisions,
so in order to avoid a cabal we should create a nonprofit foundation
with an elected board of directors that Jimbo could sit on.
Or: Sysops have more power than ordinary users,
so to avoid a cabal we should turn ordinary users into sysops
automatically after they've made several edits over several months.
In this case: To avoid a cabal, we should allow anybody
to create a certification team; you just shouldn't expect me
to pay any attention to the certifications of Team Troll,
only to Team Cabal (an ironically named team ^_^).

>I have already suggested a voting scheme that would democratize the
>decision processes by the inevitable administration. Aside from extreme
>opinions like "voting doesn't work", I see few arguments against that. We
>need to talk openly about this kind of stuff, or what you find disturbing
>will turn into a nightmare eventually.

"voting doesn't work" is hardly an extreme position;
it's been the opinion of the vast majority of humankind
throughout the vast majority of human history.
That's really not much of an argument one way or another.
(You also seem to be conflating voting with democracy, which is wrong.)
My own position on democratic decision making matters is
that we rarely need to make any official decision,
but that we should vote when decisions *must* be made
(if there isn't a clear consensus that obviates that need).
For example: We shouldn't need to officially certify certification teams.
OTOH: We will have to vote (if we can't come to a consensus)
on the issue of whether to have certification teams in the first place,
since your proposal asks for software changes that recognise them,
and the software must be decided on.

>>>A decision would have to be made as to which teams to include in the
>>>default view, i.e. the one that anonymous and newly registered users
>>>get.

>>If newcomers see only what is approved by a list of certification teams,
>>then Wikipedia will no longer be a wiki.

>You misunderstand me.
[...]
>So what I am suggesting is an alternative viewing mode that would *never*
>be the default but optional.

Then I did misunderstand you.  In the paragraph that I was responding to,
you seemed to be saying that the default view might be restricted
to certified articles.  *That* would ruin the wiki nature.
If the default view is to always show the most recent edit,
then I have no objection to this matter; it's still a wiki.

In summary, I don't see why you think this is *necessary*,
but it'd be nice to be able to refer to certified versions
if I want to get a specific trusted group's opinion on something.
I can't imagine every surfing Wikipedia with a restricted view,
but I can certainly imagine checking out the certified versions.
I just hope that participating in this is always *optional*,
never *default* (at the main Wikipedia site).


-- Toby