>lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
>> If we want to give "reliable" users privileges that we don't
>> immediately give to everyone, that's great. But just give them--
>> don't build a whole system of automating it, just give them to
>> those who ask, and who have earned them. I would far rather that
>> flag be set by a real human being exercising judgment than by some
>> meaningless process.
>
>I understand what you are saying, but
>
>1. one of the goals here is to create a system which avoids even the
> appearance of favoritism or bias. The process of "earning" the
> privileges should leave little or no discretion to the owners of
> the project...
But we do have a specific goal, don't we? I mean we already do
hold the one clear bias that we want to produce a useful encyclopedia,
as opposed to a chat room or news log. We don't want to be too
biased about people or points of view, but we _are_ explicity biased
toward our goal, and the folks who have chosen that goal should be
free to act to achieve it. I want you and Larry and whoever else you
trust to be able to stand up straight and say "this is what we're
doing here, this is the way it is" without having to waste your time
justifying everything. You've taken on a great responsibility here;
don't throw away your power--use it.
>2. The "privileges" under consideration are really quite small. For
> the most part, the concept is to protect the most highly
> trafficked pages from sheer malicious vandalism. So to "earn" the
> privilege should be quite easy -- you basically just have to be
> around for a few days and not be malicious. Even people who we
> don't like should be allowed to edit pretty much anything, as long
> as they aren't being malicious and are willing to ultimately go
> along with community consensus.
"Malicious" is another exercise of judgment. A point system can't
tell that all of the edits done by someone were subtle subversions--
say putting "not" in interesting places. Or adding links to non-
existent or irrelevant books (how many of us check those?). I
suppose it's OK to give random folks the benefit of the doubt and
grant them a flag as long as they have a login name and have been
around. But I'd still like to make sure that some human can revoke
it when necessary.
>But for now, we're just interested in tightening things up *just the
>tiniest amount* on *just the most likely pages for vandalism*.
I do respect the small-steps argument. Making wholesale changes too
quicky risks spoiling what does work well.
0