Jake Waskett wrote,
On Monday 07 February 2005 00:25, AndyL wrote:
Perhaps we need some sort of intermediate form of ongoing protection for certain pages. Perhaps some pages should only have registered editors able to actively edit them with non-editors only able to make suggestions on talk pages? Perhaps other pages should be protected on an ongoing basis and only have admins able to edit them based on proposals on talk pages which have achieved consensus or passed a certain standard?
Andy
Superb idea. I'm not sure that Wiki has the facility to have "registered" editors, but a nominated admin could be responsible for a page and apply changes that have been voted upon.
This is a very dangerous idea. I agree we need a strategy for dealing with massive organized assaults on Wikipedia, whatever the source. I hope we can come up with something better than putting an administrator in charge of a site and taking votes.
This brings us back to an issue I and others have raised: we have mechanisms for resolving disputes over behavior; we do not have, but need, mechanisms for resolving disputes over content. I think Jake is basically suggesting just such a mechanism. But it is a mechanism I oppose -- I don't trust putting any admin. in charge of a page, and I don't think votes are a good way to resolve issues of conflict (especially when 43,000 storm troopers are threatening Wikipedia! Let's not forget that Hitler took advantage of votes as well).
So: I do agree that we need mechanisms to resolve conflict over content (even though I reject this particular mechanism). I believe that such a mechanism, along with vigorous enforcement of NVOP, No Original Research, and Verifiability will be enough to protect ourselves against any small-scale assault.
But Jay's point is that none of these mechanisms will protect us against a 43,000 person assault. Fred might be right, that our worst-case scenario will not happen, but I tend to agree with Jay that we need to consider this and think of ways to deal with it. But I do not think that the solution to this kind of problem will be anything like the mechanisms we currently rely on.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein said:
This brings us back to an issue I and others have raised: we have mechanisms for resolving disputes over behavior; we do not have, but need, mechanisms for resolving disputes over content.
Well we do have some. As a non-exhaustive list: talk pages, RfC (section on Article content disputes), Wikipedia:Peer review, surveys, Village Pump, page protection as a means of making disputants iron out their differences. And we have policies and guidelines to tell us what to aim for. Beware instruction creep.
steven l. rubenstein (rubenste@ohiou.edu) [050208 04:56]:
So: I do agree that we need mechanisms to resolve conflict over content (even though I reject this particular mechanism). I believe that such a mechanism, along with vigorous enforcement of NVOP, No Original Research, and Verifiability will be enough to protect ourselves against any small-scale assault.
If those three were enforced harder - particularly verifiability - we wouldn't be having most of those problems. One of the charges agsinst Robert the Bruce in the present arbitration case is systematic removal of information and references - whether that's found to be the case, I think it indicates this sort of thing will not be regarded well by the Wikipedia community.
But Jay's point is that none of these mechanisms will protect us against a 43,000 person assault. Fred might be right, that our worst-case scenario will not happen, but I tend to agree with Jay that we need to consider this and think of ways to deal with it. But I do not think that the solution to this kind of problem will be anything like the mechanisms we currently rely on.
NPOV is not just our secret sauce, it's a shield. (It's a dessert wax *and* a floor topping.) See, the thing about POV-pushing activists is ... they act like POV-pushing activists. They're *really obvious*. Even if a call goes out to a list, they won't really have much clue on how to infiltrate just from a call.
And remember that most people are in fact sincere and of good will - even if they're on an activist list, that doesn't mean they will act in bad faith in the good cause. An editor with a POV is not necessarily going to *push* POV.
I really am not at all convinced the sky is even close to falling.
- d.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
If those three were enforced harder - particularly verifiability - we wouldn't be having most of those problems. One of the charges agsinst Robert the Bruce in the present arbitration case is systematic removal of information and references - whether that's found to be the case, I think it indicates this sort of thing will not be regarded well by the Wikipedia community.
Where there are serious differences of POV there is bound to be controversy over what is or isn't considered to scientifically supported (and verifiable) information and a relevant reference.
If and when the neo-nazi onslaught arrives they will no doubt offer "peer reviewed" information and "relevant" references and be prepared to defend them to the death. They will also (like some other single issue groups) demand the right to have their opinion heard and stated (as per one interpretation of NPOV). If they have planned their assault well and have learnt from other such POV pushers they will know that numerous subtle changes, (as opposed to large bold edits) made by four or five regulars who rotate the strike (so to speak) and get the "game" of tag-team reverting off pat, will carry the day.
That will leave Wikipedia with the option of having to "destroy" the articles in order to "save" the encyclopaedia � that or ignore the principle of assuming good faith and start banning people on the least suspicion of being �one of them� � you know �cultural revolution� stuff.
It is surely not merely the issue of whether information or references are removed from articles (as that would be self evident) but rather whether in each specific instance where it has occurred (by whomever) it was justified.
Rubenstein said: �But sometimes the reverts have to do with serious differences over content. I think this is an important distinction, because in such cases having a night, a couple of days, even a week to cool down, will not change things. Moreover, our other dispute-resolution mechanisms (mediation, arbitration) are not well-suited to resolving conflicts over content.�
And: �It is the content that concerns me, and my sense is that our process for resolving conflicts focusses on behavior rather than content. I just do not see this as useful here. So what if Jalnet2 limits himself to two reverts a day? As long as the content of his edits are wrong, they just have to be deleted.�
Reverts and deletes are a symptom � address the cause and the symptoms disappear.
Robert
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com