Erik wrote:
... A code of honor works well for small projects with like-minded people. Wikipedia is neither small nor like-minded. That's why it needs policies which are actually followed through, and not just a call for WikiLove every now and then. We don't need a WikiGestapo, but we need a certain amount of policy enforcement and clear rules, and that's just not happening. As a result, NPOV is mostly theoretical for many of the controversial articles on Wikipedia.
Sadly, I think you are right. Bureaucracy expansion.... Hm.
One possible idea: Somebody mentioned a "3 revert" rule where anything more than 3 reverts in an article content dispute by any party (not to be confused with reverting simple vandalism), is grounds for a warning. If within a certain amount of time, say a month, they go pass 3 reverts on the same article again, then they get a final warning. Strike three in the same month and they are banned from editing for a week. After that they can come back on probation (3 months long maybe?). At that point: 1 probation violation gets an automatic 1 week editing ban, second one gets 2 weeks and the third gets them a HardBan for at least the duration of their probation period.
Hopefully this will encourage people to work together instead of automatically reverting. But we also need a way to resolve disputes.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
From: Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com Reply-To: maveric149@yahoo.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:50:13 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy on Reversions?
Erik wrote:
... A code of honor works well for small projects with like-minded people. Wikipedia is neither small nor like-minded. That's why it needs policies which are actually followed through, and not just a call for WikiLove every now and then. We don't need a WikiGestapo, but we need a certain amount of policy enforcement and clear rules, and that's just not happening. As a result, NPOV is mostly theoretical for many of the controversial articles on Wikipedia.
Sadly, I think you are right. Bureaucracy expansion.... Hm.
One possible idea: Somebody mentioned a "3 revert" rule where anything more than 3 reverts in an article content dispute by any party (not to be confused with reverting simple vandalism), is grounds for a warning. If within a certain amount of time, say a month, they go pass 3 reverts on the same article again, then they get a final warning. Strike three in the same month and they are banned from editing for a week. After that they can come back on probation (3 months long maybe?). At that point: 1 probation violation gets an automatic 1 week editing ban, second one gets 2 weeks and the third gets them a HardBan for at least the duration of their probation period.
Hopefully this will encourage people to work together instead of automatically reverting. But we also need a way to resolve disputes.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
For there to be 3 reverts there must generally be someone else reverting to their version.
Also this does not cover the sort of obliteration of the existing article by someone who posts a new version with the declartion that the old one was, "all crap".
Fred
On 11/20/03 at 02:50 AM, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com said:
Erik wrote:
... A code of honor works well for small projects with like-minded people. Wikipedia is neither small nor like-minded. That's why it needs policies which are actually followed through, and not just a call for WikiLove every now and then. We don't need a WikiGestapo, but we need a certain amount of policy enforcement and clear rules, and that's just not happening. As a result, NPOV is mostly theoretical for many of the controversial articles on Wikipedia.
Sadly, I think you are right. Bureaucracy expansion.... Hm.
Any such heterogenous community needs structure but that needn't, IMHO, imply "bureaucracy" which to me implies hierarchy and a convoluted decision-making process. To avoid hierarchy, we need to ensure that "power" remains a temporary priviledge and individuals don't develop vested interests in having it. Likewise, decision-making needs to be transparent without becoming the kind of public airing of dirty laundry that [[Problem users]] now is.
One possible idea: Somebody mentioned a "3 revert" rule where anything more than 3 reverts in an article content dispute by any party (not to be confused with reverting simple vandalism), is grounds for a warning. If within a certain amount of time, say a month, they go pass 3 reverts on the same article again, then they get a final warning. Strike three in the same month and they are banned from editing for a week. After that they can come back on probation (3 months long maybe?). At that point: 1 probation violation gets an automatic 1 week editing ban, second one gets 2 weeks and the third gets them a HardBan for at least the duration of their probation period.
These rules seem kind of complicated at first glance but are probably a step in the right direction. However, some entity needs to *make* these decisions (it can't all be coded in software!). A subset of sysops would be the most obvious choice, but, as I suggested in an earlier post, a small rotating team of three or five would be preferable so as to prevent the appearance of WP being dominated by a small clique.
But we also need a way to resolve disputes.
Yes, something urgently needs to supercede [[Problem users]], which is currently the only recourse now available. What happened to the mediation and arbitration teams discussed here a few months ago?
V.