Erik Moeller wrote:
> If I sound angry, that's because I am. The bullies are being protected
> with fallacious arguments of free speech and "WikiLove". We need
> enforcement here. And I'm very disappointed in Jimbo for not doing
> something about this issue and endlessly delaying any meaningful decision.
> The solution is trivial. Warn and then temporarily ban people who violate
> the *spirt and the letter* of the rule. There are *no* negative side-
> effects of such a policy.
There *are* negative side-effects of such a policy:
(1) People against whom enforcement action is taken will sometimes
respond by escalating the conflict and resorting to more ambitious
abuse.
(2) The more enforcement actions are taken, the greater the risk that
Wikipedia will become mired in rules, bureaucracy, punishments,
cliques and power struggles.
Nevertheless, I think the costs of *not* taking action outweigh the
risks of taking action in most of the recent cases that have been
discussed here.
I wonder, though, if we could refocus our attention away from
strategies for punishing or controlling the behavior of people who
act badly, and instead look for ways to reward *good* behavior.
I've been rethinking some of my recent suggestions (e.g., requiring
people to provide an ISP-based email address at time of
registration). I think the overwhelmingly negative reaction to that
suggestion reflects a desire on the part of most people here to avoid
measures that take away existing freedoms and privileges. Well and
good, understood. But what if we think instead about measures that
simply offer *more incentive* for people to work cooperatively and
constructively together?
Right now, the Wikipedia has a multi-tiered set of user privileges. I
know we try not to regard it as a "ranking" of users, but in practice
it is. The tiers are:
(1) Anonymous IP contributors. They can't have watchlists, make
"minor" edits, or customize their user preferences.
(2) Registered users. They can do all of the above, but they can't
move, delete or protect pages, and they can't block vandals.
(3) Sysops. They can do all of the above, but they can't do some of
the things that administrators can do.
(4) Administrators.
(5) Jimbo, our exalted ruler.
Technical considerations are only part of the reason for the
additional privileges given to people in category (2) as compared to
(1). Registered users have given us greater reason to trust them,
because by registering they have made it somewhat easier to
communicate with them and to collaborate. At present, however, the
information people are asked to provide upon registration is so
limited that it is impossible to verify their identity, creating the
problem we have with sock puppets.
I propose creating a new category of "registered, confirmed users,"
which would fall in between our current categories of "registered
users" and "sysops." These would be users who, in addition to basic
registration, have provided some confirmation that they are
verifiably unique individuals and not merely the umpteenth sock
puppet of Bird or some other game-player. Methods of confirmation
might include:
*supplying a verified, ISP-based email address, street address,
social security number, credit card number, or other reasonable
evidence of unique identity.
*payment of a nominal contribution (such as US $1) to the WikiMedia
Foundation. This would enable people who are unwilling to provide
their identity in any other way to demonstrate good faith, while
deterring them from creating numerous sock puppets.
The existing category of registered users would be changed so that
people who are registered but not confirmed are no longer allowed to
make "minor" edits. Other than that, it would stay the same.
The category of "registered, confirmed users" would be allowed to
make "minor edits," and also to move and protect pages, and they
would be able to temp-block anonymous IP numbers for up to, say, 24
hours.
The other categories (sysops, administrators and Jimbo), would remain
unchanged, except that they would acquire a new power, namely the
ability to demote "registered, confirmed users" to the status of mere
"registered users." This power should only be used in cases where a
registered, confirmed user has shown a pattern of bad behavior (such
as edit wars, cussing, or chewing tobacco and missing the spittoon).
Our current "Recent Changes" feature would have a preference option
that makes it possible to only display recent changes by anonymous
IPs and unconfirmed registered users. This would make it easier to
monitor for vandals, because most vandalism would likely be committed
by people who fall into one of those categories.
This is just a rough draft of a concept, but the point is that we
want to reward people who behave collaboratively, and we want to
empower Wikipedians themselves to police the joint. Supplying a
confirmed identity is one way of building trust and displaying a
willingness to collaborate, so we should reward it with additional
privileges and empower people who have done so to participate in
curbing vandals.
There might be some other rewards that we could offer to encourage
good behavior. For example, we could have monthly prizes in various
categories, such as best new article; editor of the month; or most
congenial member of a non-mainstream religion (a category I've
created specially for Ed). The prizes could be small tokens of
appreciation such as coffee mugs, and wouldn't need to cost much.
Another possibility might be to encourage real-world interactions
between Wikipedians, for example by sponsoring social mixers in
different locales. If people start seeing the Wikipedia as a way to
actually get to know other people (and maybe even as a vehicle for
career networking), they'd probably feel greater incentive to behave
well. Maybe the social mixers could also double as fund-raisers.
Anyway...this is probably enough half-baked ideas for one day. I've
met my quota. :-)
--Sheldon Rampton