We already have a stupidity patrol. Appeal to Jimbo if things get out of hand.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Gerard stated for the record: Would it violate WP:POINT if I included the box in my page, then permablocked the fool who tried to block me for including it? - -- Sean Barrett | I'm sure there's a way to say "fuck off, sean(a)epoptic.org | you drooling idiot" in Diplomatian. -d

--- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: out if they try ... There is also the devil-may-care crowd --inbetween stupid and smart -- who see the need to make themselves useful despite the cost to themselves --brain falling out, etc. But its the same thing with any controversial issue. Such is the foolish quest to make people better informed. With that said, it might be best to avoid using pejoratives to refer to people, David. Youre English; surely you can craft your concepts with a bit more wit. I of course am no stranger to the need for clarity, but if were going to take it to that level, then you're talking about a kind of overhaul of current WP structure and WP culture. Same canine complaining --different context. SV __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Actually, all of the above is kinda funny and kinda tragic. And much as I admire you in volunteering to lead the Stupidity Patrol in their spiffy uniforms, David, I think that you're just putting a bandaid on a major problem. More work and an ongoing battle between the stupids and the self-nominated non-stupids, which probably equates to just one set, if you tot up the points of view of the participants. Very few people (apart from me) will publicly admit to being publicly stupid. The "major problem" is that anyone can edit Wikipedia, even if they are stupid or ignorant or unable to see anyone else's view but their own. The Wikimethod for getting rid of stupid or ignorant or malicious edits to articles is that the edits pop up on the watchlists of people who know better, and they fix the bad edits, hopefully in a patient and productive manner and with due reference to sources. On policy matters like this, perhaps the problem isn't that people won't dive in to fix obvious stupidities, but that ordinary editors assume that management is looking after it because that's what management is for, and management doesn't want to get involved. If you don't want to get involved, and I can appreciate that you have better things to do than be continually stamping out stupid little fires, why not get (say) half a dozen editors you trust to have sensible heads on their shoulders, point them in the direction of the stupid little problem and ask them to keep an eye on it. Pick a different half-dozen each time. Think of it as an unofficial jury duty. Solid, steady, experienced editors are going to do the right thing, quench the flames, monitor the situation and if things get out of hand, they will call for assistance from their own resources. In effect, they put the thing on their watchlists. Maybe this amounts to the same thing as your Stupidity Patrol, but the appearance of a posse of citizens using common sense arguments would work better than some SWAT team who would inevitably lose patience and fall back on their appointed authority. Peter (Skyring)