William Pietri wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I believe
his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work,
allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to
work.
I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started
pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the
possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments
I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody
editing is impossible.
I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in
your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people
that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the
case.
Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain
size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go
against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have
managed to make a viable website.
Well, actually, I don't think that was my point. My point was about the
right attitude to risk.
Risk is a part of life. Some youth take on risks that would make
grown-ups say, "Are you crazy?" Maybe too that's why they are so well
suited to be soldiers; an older person knows better than to put himself
in harm's way. The Cult of Certainty would have us believe that with
enough order andt stucture, with enough insurance, and blame, and
revenge everything can be put right.
I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as a
"pure wiki" in the way
that you describe it. Ward, after all, had root and wasn't afraid to use
it; he's a pretty pragmatic guy. Regardless, that sort of idealistic
purity is not something I've argued for or am arguing for here.
In Frankfurt I had the pleasure of sitting with Ward Cunningham and
Sunir Shah for a couple of hours of good German beer. I might as well
have been a fly on the wall. The tone of that exchange was consistent
with what you say now.
Just to be clear, I agree that having some number of
trusted people with
some limited set of special powers is probably necessary. And I agree
that some of the various proposals are unlikely to work as offered. But
I'm not particularly focused on any of them.
Again yes. We also need to remember that no trust is absolute. Leaders
of countries have been revered until they achieved power and betrayed
that trust. Consistently bad behaviour may be a strong indicator of how
a person may act in the future, but good behaviour is not a good
indicator of how that person will respond to stress.
My point is that the particular solution we have now is
unlikely to be
the right one for the next couple of hundred years, and I don't think
it's even a great one for the next year. Given the necessity of change,
I'm concerned about attitudes and arguments that seem to apply more or
less equally against any sort of innovation.
Maybe that's not how you're intending to come across. However, in
describing Wikipedia as a "well-established institution", in claiming
"our aim is to reduce risk to the minimum
possible," and arguing against proposed changes without offering
alternatives or constructive criticism, that's the impression I'm getting.
With enough rules and restraint any leading-edge project can regress
into becoming a well-established institution. Today happens to be the
fifth anniversary of my first official edit. During that time there
have been changes, and not all for the good. The worst ones seem to be
directed at maintaining some kind of reputation, or confronting a fear
that the whole project will fall apart if there is not enough order.
There are bad things that absolutely need to be cleaned up, but we don't
need such a broad brush to do that.
There have been
multiple requests for evidence that opening up
adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't
work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.
I think that's evidence that getting rid of admins won't work. I agree,
and I don't think anybody is advocating that. But it's not proof that
opening up adminship to any degree along the spectrum won't work.
Did you happen to see this bit on semi-protection?
http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/17/the-new-york-times…
I think this is the right spirit to bring to these discussions on
administrative power, not just editing power. If we're looking for a
direction to move in, I think the default bias should be to seek more
openness, and that we should move in more closed directions only with
reluctance and a sense of (hopefully temporary) defeat.
It strikes me that there is a direct parallel between this and events in
the real world. Fear, whether founded or not, is a great motivator.
When we start restricting freedoms in the name of terrorists who would
allegedly destroy our way of life we, and not the terrorists are
destroying our way of life.
Ec