Admins do excercise editorial control, mostly in their selection of articles for deletion (and especially speedy deletion). I've read a few irate bloggers talking about how the articles they added got deleted immediately -- and while of course it's possible to argue that those articles didn't belong in wikipedia, it's silly to say that making *and then enforcing* this argument isn't excercising editorial control.
Even non-admins excercise editorial control, often /en mass/. It's just a more participatory form of control, and a more open one.
On 6/17/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales may argue that the NYT got the situation exactly backwards, but the reality is that this is a semantic game and in this case the contrarian position the NYT is arguing is, if not ultimately correct, an important one to have. Wikipedia benefits by having outsiders challenging Wikipedia to be and remain open and free. Institutions by their nature are conservative and self-protecting, and their commitment to their claimed ideals must face constant challenge for them to remain true to said ideals.
I would say that neither Wales for the NYT is really right-- I would argue that Wikipedia, as it grows in size and prominence, is evolving rapidly and in ways that no one person could possibly understand fully. That Wikipedia will always be straddling the uncomfortable divide between reliability and editability, just as it embodies conflicts between universality and topicality, brevity and completeness, accessibility and accuracy, etc. It is neither the golden perfect lovely machine that Wales seems so insistent on portraying nor the decadent failure its critics decry.*
I would be happier if we lived in a world where the New York Times was writing articles promoting the promise of Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales was its biggest critic, finding fault where others see none, but I don't get to choose the world I live in.
That said, I found it quite interesting how Larry Sanger is now lost from the official narrative of the creation of Wikipedia. History belongs to the victors, I suppose. Although I became one of his most active critics during his tenure, he does not deserve to become a footnote, or worse, forgotten.
--tc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l