William Pietri wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work, allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to work.
I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody editing is impossible.
I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the case.
Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have managed to make a viable website.
Well, actually, I don't think that was my point. My point was about the right attitude to risk.
Risk is a part of life. Some youth take on risks that would make grown-ups say, "Are you crazy?" Maybe too that's why they are so well suited to be soldiers; an older person knows better than to put himself in harm's way. The Cult of Certainty would have us believe that with enough order andt stucture, with enough insurance, and blame, and revenge everything can be put right.
I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as a "pure wiki" in the way that you describe it. Ward, after all, had root and wasn't afraid to use it; he's a pretty pragmatic guy. Regardless, that sort of idealistic purity is not something I've argued for or am arguing for here.
In Frankfurt I had the pleasure of sitting with Ward Cunningham and Sunir Shah for a couple of hours of good German beer. I might as well have been a fly on the wall. The tone of that exchange was consistent with what you say now.
Just to be clear, I agree that having some number of trusted people with some limited set of special powers is probably necessary. And I agree that some of the various proposals are unlikely to work as offered. But I'm not particularly focused on any of them.
Again yes. We also need to remember that no trust is absolute. Leaders of countries have been revered until they achieved power and betrayed that trust. Consistently bad behaviour may be a strong indicator of how a person may act in the future, but good behaviour is not a good indicator of how that person will respond to stress.
My point is that the particular solution we have now is unlikely to be the right one for the next couple of hundred years, and I don't think it's even a great one for the next year. Given the necessity of change, I'm concerned about attitudes and arguments that seem to apply more or less equally against any sort of innovation.
Maybe that's not how you're intending to come across. However, in describing Wikipedia as a "well-established institution", in claiming "our aim is to reduce risk to the minimum possible," and arguing against proposed changes without offering alternatives or constructive criticism, that's the impression I'm getting.
With enough rules and restraint any leading-edge project can regress into becoming a well-established institution. Today happens to be the fifth anniversary of my first official edit. During that time there have been changes, and not all for the good. The worst ones seem to be directed at maintaining some kind of reputation, or confronting a fear that the whole project will fall apart if there is not enough order. There are bad things that absolutely need to be cleaned up, but we don't need such a broad brush to do that.
There have been multiple requests for evidence that opening up adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.
I think that's evidence that getting rid of admins won't work. I agree, and I don't think anybody is advocating that. But it's not proof that opening up adminship to any degree along the spectrum won't work.
Did you happen to see this bit on semi-protection?
http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/17/the-new-york-times-...
I think this is the right spirit to bring to these discussions on administrative power, not just editing power. If we're looking for a direction to move in, I think the default bias should be to seek more openness, and that we should move in more closed directions only with reluctance and a sense of (hopefully temporary) defeat.
It strikes me that there is a direct parallel between this and events in the real world. Fear, whether founded or not, is a great motivator. When we start restricting freedoms in the name of terrorists who would allegedly destroy our way of life we, and not the terrorists are destroying our way of life.
Ec