On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Robert Dodier wrote:
--- slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
The only reason this stuff hasn't spread like
wildfire throughout
Wikipedia is because a number of editors have opposed them since they
first started last May (not always the same group of editors, because
editors get worn out and give up) and so the material is reasonably
contained. But it's an exhausting job. If you want to join in, you
are more than welcome, because one or two of us could do with a
break.
This discussion points up what seems to be the greatest
hazard and roadblock to Wikipedia: the current editorial
model simply cannot cope with determined agenda promotion.
In the absence of agenda promotion, Wikipedia works great.
For 99% (or more) of the articles, the "anyone can edit anytime"
policy works just fine, and produces good content.
However some of the most important (or popular, at least)
articles fall in that tiny fraction. GW Bush, Reagan, Israel
and Palestine come to mind. What I see is that WP can get in
the neighborhood of a great article, but can't ever get
there. It's like driving across town to see a movie only to
have edit warriors grabbing the steering wheel every time
you try to park, so you end up circling the block forever.
I had much the same thought today. After all, we mark a number
of articles with {{NPOV}} or {{disptued}}, so why not create
a category for articles where the normal rules of behavior
on Wikipedia are replaced with more stringent ones actively
monitored to enforce compliance?
Articles would then be moved in & out of that category much as
we vote on articles at {{VfD}} or for Featured Article status.
The more stringent rules would then be set up with the goal of
hammering out compromise language & ending these interminable
disputes -- while adhering to the goals of NPOV.
At the same time, this new approach should only be done if it
adds a negligible amount -- or no -- extra burden to the ArbCom.
I've spun out a few different mechanisms for how these zones
could work, but it's far more important to see if there's a
consensus on Wikipedia that this is an idea worth trying first.
And I have to admit I'm not entirely keen on the idea myself:
telling people that certain parts of Wikipedia are under
"martial law" somehow just doesn't fit with the image *I* have
for this project.
Geoff