geni wrote:
On 2/10/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Couldn't that logic be applied almost equally to allowing everybody to edit?
Nope. Firstly the damage you can do through editing is less.
Secondly the software, tools and our social structures are built around being ready to undo editing vandalism. We have very little in the way of methods of taking down problem admins fast.
As to the first, that's why I said "almost", but I gather you mean that a rogue with the sysop bit can cause vastly more cleanup work than a regular editor. Is that right?
As to the second, isn't that a chicken and egg problem? All of those things evolved around having to deal with editorial vandalism. If you rule out any improvement that requires similar evolution, it seems like a generic argument for stasis. If the argument had been applied at the beginning, it would have ruled out open editability, period.
If the problem is that the current structure hasn't evolved to deal with Y, where Y is a potential harm from an otherwise good X, then isn't the solution is to allow a controlled amount of X to allow the structure to evolve? Or at least to see if the cost of mediating Y ends up being under the benefit of X?
William