Wikipedia is not wiki. Indeed it is not. It is not a wiki like usemod
and Ward's wiki etc. It has ceased being egalitarian. The reason is:
because it is an encyclopedia. It aims at being an encyclopedia, not
just a collection of information for everyone to wade through without
any moderation, guidelines, structure or policy.
A corrolary of this striving towards higher quality articles is the
meritocracy that comes with it. Admins are awarded their adminship
for various reasons, but people with a low edit count and no good
article namespace work need not apply. Some people feel that one can
only become an admin after coaching an article succesfully through
the process obtaining featured status.
The present system of conflict resolution is officially egalitarian.
If I protect an article I've been edit warring on, reverted four
times and then unblocked myself, blocked an abusive troll that had
been attacking me, I can expect an RFC and some nasty shouting at.
Good thing too. It avoids abuse of power.
However, whenever admins seem to be favoured (or supportive of each
other) in the conflict resolution process, there is tut-tutting,
screaming of "tag teaming". There are meat puppets. There is a
clique, a cabal, an underground right/left/chicken wing conspiracy to
rule Wikipedia, etcetera.
Still, it's very simple. Wikipedia has become a meritocracy. Those
with the patience to revert vandalism, explain NPOV to newbies, NOR
to partisans, CITE to creative souls, conflict resolution and 3RR to
edit warriors... they will be attacked but most of them seem to
survive. Editcountitis. Yes. Deep jealousy of Olivier, SimonP, Bryan
Derksen and the tangibly absent Derek Ramsey. Because in the end the
main aim of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia. Neutral.
Verifiable. Referenced. Coming to a mirror near you.
Jfdwolff
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.11/191 - Release Date: 02/12/2005