On 21/07/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)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.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)