On 6/18/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, if we are going to apply litmus tests, we
can certainly expect
admins to forego editing and blocking in the same subject areas.
Same page? Sure. Same parties as a dispute you're having elsewhere? Sure.
...same topic? I can see this proving problematic unless we define it
to an ungameable extent.
"Abuse! Abuse! He blocked me and yet he edits science pages himself
all the time!"
I'm not thinking about this in terms of wikilaws per se. But if we
want to talk about gaming, it's obvious under the present regime that
an admin with an interest in a controversial subject has a substantial
advantage in making sure that those with opposing views are severely
hampered by unopposable reversions, blocks, and bans. It's easy to put
those opponents in the position of having to act out or just give up,
especially where there is a group of admins with shared interests.
Even when they are on the right side of the issue (no irony intended
there) it creates a bad impression. When the controversy is less
clearly right and wrong, it sets off battles like this one.
This particular dispute fits into the "admins as overall editors"
issue, which it seems to me is disrupting the "anyone can edit"
mission in a big way. If that mission needs to be refined, it needs to
be addressed directly, instead of being picked at in a series of
maybe/maybe-not lesser policy disputes. What it looks like to me now
is that we're being driven into a POV capture by admins (and projects
too) that is establishing Wikipedia as having definite political and
social views to express.