That is an issue of content management, which we already do and we are already attempting to do better as time goes on. We've already got stacks of policies - some are in good shape, others could stand some significant improvement, but where we fall down is on enforcement. Creating a Foundation-wide policy condemning "attack groups" invites more of the sort of unending drama, accusations and amateur sleuthing that already clogs up our dispute resolution process from time to time. We should stick to what we're good at - creating and managing content. Investigating and punishing external efforts to influence content is really beyond what we can expect to do well, and if we do our current job well enough it won't be necessary.
Nathan
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
There are instances when the thumb has been on the scale, but that approach is not viable. It is far better to continue to develop as much sophistication as we can with respect to point of view and try to ensure opposing points of view are fairly expressed. To take the example of the CAMERA initiate, we need to ensure that the Palestinian and Arab point of view is fully and fairly expressed. That is far preferable to adopting a position of mistrust toward administrators.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l