Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Much confusion, it seems to me, between two "metrics" or axes: one to do with fallibility (anyone can make mistakes relative to unfamiliar or even familiar situations on the wikis, particularly when "implementation details" are in the hands of self-selected groups and process wonks); and another to do with politicisation (in which the default assumption is of bad faith in those who would disturb a supposed equilibrium) which is a version of small-c conservatism. The BOLD editor has trouble on both fronts ("you're doing it out of process" and "anyway change is only allowed after long debate").
In other words there are two kinds of BOLDness, the creative, contributive, substantive kind, and the other kind. We seem to be getting a better picture now of why the adversarial system only works up to a point. In a perfect encyclopedic/journalistic environment conflicts would be resolved by discussions, and discussions would be won by the validity of arguments. We've seen people gaming the system successfully, such that the BRD cycle is only as good as the mediation and arbitration systems around it. (RFM apparently has a big backlog).
I'll go one step further: Wikipedia is important, and its essential that we codify our work in accordance with concepts of professionalism. We've long understood NPOV to be our [[objectivity (journalism)]] equivalent, and just as in journalism we should label certain types and modes of editing as literally ""unethical.""
-SC