On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:13:37 +0000, Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
Aside from the issue of capacity, there's also the matter of credibility, particularly public credibility. Even if the Wikipedia community has more trust in the arbcom now, we cannot infer based on that observation that Wikipedia readers or the public will hold it in any high esteem. Frankly, many people (to say the least) would be highly skeptical of an
encyclopedia
whose editorial concerns are officially handled by teenagers. (This isn't calling into question the abilities of the teenage arbom members; IMO at least two of them have more sense in them than many of the older
members put
together.) Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot afford to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work
having any
meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia
articles
and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our time. -172
If we are going to worry about puplic perception, some would argue that the first thing we should do is work on making Wikipedia child/offendable safe. I've been a strict opponent of censorship on Wikipedia myself, but I think that issues regarding potentially offensive content is has more potential for damage to our credibility than unenforced content guidelines. I agree that quality control is a valid concern, however I thin that if the justification is public perception, potentially offensive content tops that list.