steven l. rubenstein (rubenste(a)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.