From: Brian Corr <BCorr(a)NEAction.org> Nod. Filtered users, older than one month, with more than 100 major edits are the board. Perhaps will it be necessary to flag them for easier management. They could be also those with the right to "validate" wikipedia for the paper/Cd version. the You noticed ? :-) Yes, probably not very usable. btw, is the new deletion policy being submitted to the 2/3 threshold to be adopted, and to consensus ? Primarily, I think that we need to think about the concept of voting and how it affects group processes. Wikipedia is an unusual hybrid of Wiki, NPOV, *and* altruistic self-interest (i.e., we all get some satisfaction from what we do here, but we also do it for the good of the project/community/world). I also think we need to look at how our decision-making processes affect how much we are open or closed -- we can be "open" to everybody, but if only one type of person can handle being a contributor or editor, what does that really mean for us. Very true As well as the limit where those who do not fit well in that spirit decide to leave under peer pressure, or because the rules put them away. Somehow, I think that when a user does not fit well, it is quite different that people go to him, and try to explain, and try to negociate, try to convince him to change for the better or just drop a boilerplate on his user page, saying "this is user does not respect regulations #23.3 bis and TR-W3 ter - user name blocked". Of course, second choice is much quicker, and likely, the person putting the boilerplate feels little responsability since she is just following a legal rule. Her action is little controversial. That help going toward more peace and fluidity. If the choice is to discuss, it is longer, it is more controversial, it can generate a lot of heat, perhaps too much heat. I was thinking here for example of the issue of refactoring/removing personal attacks versus not. If removing is not "legalised", it may be that the cleaner is attacked himself, reverted, has to insist a lot to clean the place, to fight for his opinion. Likely to generate much anger between people If removing is "legalised", when he does, and someone complain, he just has to say "look, there is a rule. If you disagree with my doing so, just change the rule". So...perhaps would it be best to have few rules when the community is strong and can handle disagreement, and on the contrary strong rules when it is chaotic and diverse ? what >I should focus my energy on -- and it seems like I >should be writing articles and *not* checking Votes but >I find it hard to decide the balance between :-) When people start, they write contribute mostly After a while, they do housekeeping After, perhaps, they teach others to do the housekeeping :-) There are many different task in housekeeping My laundry is waiting btw I >think we might be somewhere near 17 http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?WikiLifeCycle is a good link That is what make it worth it :-) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/