On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:04:58 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Thanks. I don't really have a reasoned objection, or at least not a categorical one, to this. On admins editing protected articles, I think the consensus is that they're not really supposed to but I'm not familiar with the details of consensus on this--just that it proved controversial when an admin altered the content of [[clitoris]] while it was protected. I do feel uneasy about the idea of having "trusted" content editors. When editors have a limited number of collaborators they will inevitably learn one another's blind spots and edit for consensus within the group. Without new editors coming along and entering new material out of the blue, the dynamics of editing would be very different. I'm not against this at all in principle, but I'd hate to see Wikipedia abandon a winning formula just because of a few racist nuts. Readers are cleverer than we think.
You make good points about Wikipedia's winning formula. The current dispute process has, for the most part, worked very well. I'm just (as we all probably realise) speaking hypothetically about a system that might work. You also make good points about the dangers of only taking consensus among a small group. However, the discussion and call for consensus would be among the community as a whole, not just among the moderators. The moderators have the only write access to the article, but normal users can still discuss the matter. Maybe I'm assuming too much good faith among the moderators to edit for consensus among the community as a whole and not just for themselves. Maybe it's just my inexperience. :-)
Cheers, DP.