On 9/7/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes, simplicity itself.
I would just like to add an additional thought to this thread (which could also apply to the "moderation" one):
In 60s Berkeley, it was not a war that began all of the fuss on campus; nor was it People's Park. The various student groups and organizations, as had been tradition, maintained and manned folding tables in an open area of the campus where we distributed literature and announcements of meetings. The administration decided that a couple of the groups were distributing "disturbing and unnecessarily controversial" materials which "was not relevant to the purpose or mission of the university". All hell broke loose. We were asking for more openness: the freedom to speak - as well as the freedom to know. And who were we fighting? A paternalistic, "trust us, we know what's best for you" administration. It takes just one voice to start a protest - but many to bring about change.
As far as my dialogues on this List: I make it a point never to argue with a ideologue. It's like a ship arguing with an iceberg. Instead, I merely change course and go in a different & wiser direction. In time the sun will take care of it.
[[WP:NOT]] - Wikipedia is not a democracy, not a soapbox, etc. The mailing list is significantly looser, but we do expect discussions to be at least somehow related to Wikipedia, as a bare minimum. Not disrupting discussions about Wikipedia is a secondary concern, one we're not particularly eager to tackle unless it's clear the list is reacting very unhealthily to it (to the point that the mods and the list are both receiving several complaints).
I don't understand this fetish people have for comparing Wikipedia to a democracy. We're an encyclopaedia-writing project; our models should be non-profits and not governments. We have significantly more leeway because we operate on the internet (I have my doubts about the efficacy of the wiki model when applied to, say, Red Cross work), but ultimately we are a project to write an encyclopaedia. Those advocating an organisational or governance model abstracted directly from a national government should explain why this is a relevant model to adopt.
As I said, Marc, you are making philosophical points; you are not addressing the concrete issues in any way (perhaps because as you admit, you prefer to ignore them and take your own tack). Can you present an example of where we've had to moderate someone with ultimately negative effects for the project directly because of this?
I can appreciate the need for absolute or near-absolute freedom of speech; I am an advocate of it politically in my own country. But in a project, as you yourself have said in the past, some leadership, some guidance, some fella who ultimately has the authority to say "take it or leave it", is required. Even parliaments need someone to preside over their proceedings; the model we use for this mailing list is thus actually far more open because everyone has the floor - only those on moderation need permission to speak.
Since this has now progressed into a philosophical debate, if there is no further concrete issue that needs resolution, I think I have said more than my fair share.
Johnleemk