On 10/18/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
I fail to see the connection between the principle
discussions open forever, and your anti-obscenity project. Your
response is a total non-sequitur.
If you look at that case it caused a lot of problems. Fortunety there
was a built in time limit on the process which ment that ultimetly it
was self limiting. You wish to take that away. You are failing to
think through the consiquences of your proposals.
The problem is in letting a particular issue guide the more general
policy. That is bound to create injustices in places where they are
unforseen. I did personally delete the now famous lolicon image from
Wiktionary, and I'm in constant debate with people who want to generate
lists of unverified "naughty words". But I would not be so naïve as to
blindly resist any community consensus to keep these.
At the same time I believe in perpetually open process that can change
results with the times without the need for newcomers to feel left out
of the decisons. If there is a general consensus that pedophilic images
should be banned from the project I don't think that leaving that debate
open is going to change anything; it is reasonable to expect that
newbies will divide in the same ratio as established editors.
There is an unfortunate tendency in established communities to believe
that what has happened in a community up to a given point in time is the
best that could be. A really open Wiki community needs to leave room
for new ideas, and needs to be open to changing virtually all policies.
This is especially important for policies where the support for either
side is marginal
Now that Wikipedia has become such a huge Wiki it is important to have
decision-making become scalable.