On Apr 29, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The idea that openness for editing and protecting articles from harm are mutually exclusive is incorrect.
Many of the past stable versions proposals intended to remove that interaction but the community, *not* the foundation, instead preferred to wait for perfection from vaporware software rather than trying our some short term exploratory improvements... so here we are, years later, and nothing has changed in this area except the aggressiveness with which the status-quo is protected continues to increase and with it so must the dilution level of any proposed improvements.
The community is not an effective decision-making apparatus for big- picture concerns. One need only look at the travesties that are our verifiability and no original research policies to see the debacle that takes place when the community attempts to legislate on a large scale as opposed to in the form of local consensus. Given the threshold for "consensus" these days, any objection that garners significant traction will be a deal-breaker.
The express and institutionalized protection of anonymous editing is sufficient to block change in this area. Removing that protection or revising it might not be sufficient to cause a change, but it is necessary. And, frankly, if Jimbo wants a large-scale and programmatic change, he cannot simply complain to the community. There is no mechanism in place for the sort of change he is asking for. If he wants one, he needs to create it. We can't.
-Phil