On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> That is unhelpful rhetoric. What does it mean to
"have lost"?
> Wikipedia is not going to disappear tomorrow just because we have some
> PR in some articles. We can deal with secretive activities when we
> detect them; that is not a logical argument for not creating a
> framework where these organizations can achieve some of their aims
> (where they are legitimate and in line with our own) while not doing
> harm.
As you admit, we can deal with secretive activities,
so obviously we
haven't lost...
I said "when we detect them." When we don't, they do us harm.
Logically, more secretive activity means more harm. Furthermore, there
is always the risk of false positives and unfair accusations.
We have an existing framework where anyone can
'achieve their aims',
so long as they are aligned with the aims of the project.
That would suggest that we should try to incorporate neutral, factual
information that they provide.
I'm confused; our policy on socks and trolls is
that we do not
accommodate them when they make their interest known.
A sock puppet is typically a returning user who has been punished by
the system and is trying to evade enforcement by creating a new
identity. Our processes (ArbCom etc.) are geared towards reducing the
number of cases where we have to use hard enforcement tactics that are
difficult to implement in an open environment, and instead encourage
the use of soft enforcement. Users are often willing to accept such
soft enforcement because it preserves their existing identity
and reputation. When too much hard enforcement is used in an open
wiki, it often breeds an atmosphere of suspicion, as sock puppetry is
difficult to detect and the rules become more difficult to implement.
We do not accommodate "sock puppets", but we accommodate users whose
behavior is slightly harmful (rather than being completely harmful,
such as vandals) by trying to integrate them into the community and
providing a safe framework of interaction (as well as a clear record
of their past activities). This reduces the risk of turning them
_into_ sock puppets, and thus, the risk of more harmful activity
within our community.
Analogously, the WP:COI process suggests encouraging PR organizations
whose behavior we consider _slightly_ harmful to work "within the
system" in a fair and responsible manner, rather than turning them
towards secrecy and disruption in ways which are _more_ harmful
because they, like sock puppetry, breed an atmosphere of suspicion and
are generally harder to trace and detect.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik