From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Someone created {{User pedophile}}. While almost anyone would think this was created as a vehicle for trolling and personal attacks, the creator actually did create it for the purpose of finding and blocking paedophiles from editing, since *of course* they would put it on their own page.
Someone went "wtf" and killed it. Then someone else RECREATED it. Then it was put on TFD. Then someone else killed it. Then someone else recreated it *because it was in the process*.
A sample of the depths of Wiki discussion can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#Blocking_self-identified_pedophiles
What happens is that really really stupid ideas get floated and discussed, but people who aren't stupid avoid the discussions because their brain will fall out if they try ... so then the people who like the stupid idea consider they've formed a 'consensus' amongst all those interested, and think it's the will of the community to push the really stupid idea.
I think we really, really need a Wiki Stupidity Patrol to go to really dumb discussions and attempt to inject sense into them.
Actually, all of the above is kinda funny and kinda tragic. And much as I admire you in volunteering to lead the Stupidity Patrol in their spiffy uniforms, David, I think that you're just putting a bandaid on a major problem. More work and an ongoing battle between the stupids and the self-nominated non-stupids, which probably equates to just one set, if you tot up the points of view of the participants. Very few people (apart from me) will publicly admit to being publicly stupid.
The "major problem" is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, even if they are stupid or ignorant or unable to see anyone else's view but their own.
The Wikimethod for getting rid of stupid or ignorant or malicious edits to articles is that the edits pop up on the watchlists of people who know better, and they fix the bad edits, hopefully in a patient and productive manner and with due reference to sources.
On policy matters like this, perhaps the problem isn't that people won't dive in to fix obvious stupidities, but that ordinary editors assume that management is looking after it because that's what management is for, and management doesn't want to get involved.
If you don't want to get involved, and I can appreciate that you have better things to do than be continually stamping out stupid little fires, why not get (say) half a dozen editors you trust to have sensible heads on their shoulders, point them in the direction of the stupid little problem and ask them to keep an eye on it. Pick a different half-dozen each time. Think of it as an unofficial jury duty. Solid, steady, experienced editors are going to do the right thing, quench the flames, monitor the situation and if things get out of hand, they will call for assistance from their own resources. In effect, they put the thing on their watchlists.
Maybe this amounts to the same thing as your Stupidity Patrol, but the appearance of a posse of citizens using common sense arguments would work better than some SWAT team who would inevitably lose patience and fall back on their appointed authority.
Peter (Skyring)