Michael Turley wrote:
The blocking feature makes newbie biting much easier, which is not a good thing. ... Regarding "domination". I chose the word to best express why *I* am uninterested in a particular subset of admin tools. I prefer persuasion to force. I have no current interest in tools of force here at Wikipedia; I intend to test the boundaries of wikilove, good reason, and persuasion. ... Finally, the rollback feature, as far as I can tell, is unique, in that it is a very valuable editing enhancement, but is the only one that doesn't have any powers of enforcement behind it.
The rollback feature *is* a power of enforcement, just like blocking is, in the rhetorical framework you're using (other people prefer the rhetoric of janitorial tools). Blocking doesn't have any additional powers of enforcement behind it either, as we regularly find when dealing with vandals who can edit from multiple IP addresses. Rollback is just as susceptible to use in biting newbies as blocking, although people may differ on the degree of seriousness involved.
Reverting is widely considered a "slap in the face" to the person being reverted. If we are to use your rhetoric, then I don't see how we can avoid considering it an instrument of force. If you really are such a wiki-pacifist as you claim, and prefer persuasion to force in all circumstances, then you shouldn't be interested in having the rollback function either.
--Michael Snow
On 6/29/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
The blocking feature makes newbie biting much easier, which is not a good thing. ... Regarding "domination". I chose the word to best express why *I* am uninterested in a particular subset of admin tools. I prefer persuasion to force. I have no current interest in tools of force here at Wikipedia; I intend to test the boundaries of wikilove, good reason, and persuasion. ... Finally, the rollback feature, as far as I can tell, is unique, in that it is a very valuable editing enhancement, but is the only one that doesn't have any powers of enforcement behind it.
The rollback feature *is* a power of enforcement, just like blocking is, in the rhetorical framework you're using (other people prefer the rhetoric of janitorial tools). Blocking doesn't have any additional powers of enforcement behind it either, as we regularly find when dealing with vandals who can edit from multiple IP addresses. Rollback is just as susceptible to use in biting newbies as blocking, although people may differ on the degree of seriousness involved.
Reverting is widely considered a "slap in the face" to the person being reverted. If we are to use your rhetoric, then I don't see how we can avoid considering it an instrument of force. If you really are such a wiki-pacifist as you claim, and prefer persuasion to force in all circumstances, then you shouldn't be interested in having the rollback function either.
--Michael Snow
No, this is incorrect.
Blocking users and locking pages exert complete dominance over either the other user, or the page in question. From what I know, rollback exercises no control at all over the other user, and no more control over the page than regular editing because unlike the other two I mentioned, rollback doesn't foreclose the other person's ability to re-edit.
Reversion is a bit of a slap in the face, but it's a tool that every editor possesses equally. No single user has a monopoly of force. Where there is no monopoly of force, people either live in a constant state of warfare, learn to get along together, or appeal to someone who does have overwhelming force to apply.
From what I know of it, rollback is merely a more convenient way to
accomplish an edit. It doesn't eliminate the possibility of the rollback being reverted like a block or lock does.