--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is not possible for 10,000 NeoNazis (if such numbers exist) to storm into Wikipedia and take it over by subverting our organic democratic processes because I will not allow it. Period. So we don't have to overdesign those processes out of a paranoia of a hostile takeover.
I think my point has always been that *you dont have to personally disallow it* - we, the community wont tolerate it, and theres no need to fear any great surge in one particular strain of irrationality than any other.
But this also means that we don't need to over-react right now. We can wait and see. They'll talk a big game but just review those message boards and then look around here. A battle of wits between Wikipedians and Nazis? I know who I'm betting on.
Personally speaking, I think your sense of balance is rather wise.
I very much agree with that. I think posting hate speech about Wikipedia users on another site is sufficient grounds for banning, whether our current rules say so or not.
My issue is the ability of sysops to impose "bans" at all, even if its based on policy. Blocks are one thing, but bans should have review. I think the Arbcom should accomodate a separate "case-review" facility, and that the Arbcom should grow to accomodate the growing need for clear and documented review.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com