On 21/07/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
(As an aside, it is bad form to reply to *me* to oppose someone elses position which I don't share)
This wasn't done with malice, it was purely accidental.
I'd really like to find out where you got this bizarre notion that Wikipedia's orignal aim was to provide "rights" to new users and "anons".
"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." (from [[Wikipedia:About]]). The statement "anyone can edit" requires that editing rights are given to new users and anons.
Wikipedia exists to make a Free Content Encyclopedia. It turns out that being promiscuous about who we allow to edit helps that goal rather well. That does not imply that all forms of promiscuity are beneficial. I expect you agree with this, or do you think we should post our root passwords on the website too? Once you have admitted that there must be limitations, it simply becomes a matter of discussing what those limits should be.
I would suggest we stop claiming that "anyone can edit" the project. It is a misleading and false.
I'd like to think that such discussions should be allowed to continue dispassionately and without attracting hysterical cries about "destroying the project" or "stripping rights".
I used these words because they match my perception of what is happening. I strive to avoid sensationalism at all costs.