Erik,
Thanks for the reply.
>> I'm not familiar with Helga's writings, so I cannot comment on that
specific case. In general, I do not see the problems you see.
That's probably one main point of disagreement, then. Suffice it to say
I've been with Wikipedia from the beginning and I do think that things are
very bad right now, far worse than they have been in the beginning. I
think it's becoming nearly intolerable for polite and well-meaning people
to participate, because they're constantly having to deal with people who
simply don't respect the rules. I take it you do care about that, if it's
happening, but perhaps you don't see it happening. In that case, we can
always collect a list of people who have been driven away or who have
quietly stopped editing so much out of disgust with having to deal with
people who just don't get it.
Put me at the top of the list.
>> There will always be edit conflicts, and giving a small, however
selected elite control to resolve them seems like an awful idea.
I'm talking about a body of trusted members, not an "elite." Tarring the
proposal with that word isn't an argument.
>> Sure, many times those who are shouting against the majority are just
cranks. Sometimes, however, they happen to be right.
Well, the times I'm concerned about aren't necessarily times when people
are shouting against the majority, but when they write nonsense, brazen
political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so forth--in other
words, violating community standards.
>> Note that one of your favorite "bad examples", Everything2, is an
example for a community that has been completely eroded by a supposedly
benevolent elite (albeit not a random, changing one).
Note also that the group I propose to great is far more reasonable a
notion of authority than the arbitrary hierarchical power structure of
Everything2. We can learn from their mistakes without being committed to
a completely anarchical situation.
>> I am, like many others, a big believer in the concept of "soft
security".
Why don't you explain exactly what that means here on the list, and why
you and others think it's such a good thing?
>> If we want Wikipedia to develop in a certain fashion, we should try to
enforce our rules through peer pressure. People who violate NPOV should be
educated about its purpose.
It seems to me that in growing numbers people refuse to bow to "peer
pressure" or to be "educated" about anything regarding Wikipedia.
Without generally-accepted standards and moral authority and the shame
culture that accompanies them, peer pressure is impossible.
Peer pressure seemd to work relatively well in the past. It is working
less and less well as the project has grown and since I left a position of
official authority.
>> Antagonistic statements of the "if you don't like it, leave" sort do
not cool down conflicts, they drive and fuel them.
They do certainly cool down conflicts if the person receiving the
statement knows that the person issuing the statement has the authority to
do something about it. They also let the recipient know that there are
some lines that just can't be crossed without the community taking a
forthright stand against it.
>> Express respect for the other person's view, and try to find a way to
integrate it without violating NPOV.
When the disagreement concerns Wikipedia policies and obvious
interpretations of them, when the violator of those policies does so
brazenly, knowingly, and mockingly--and surely you've been around long
enough to know that this happens not infrequently now--then it's not
particularly important that we "express respect for the other person's
view." By then, it's clear that diplomacy will not solve the problem.
>> If this kind of behavior was more effectively trained and practiced by
Wikipedia regulars, I believe we could deal with seemingly destructive
newbies much more rationally. But the prevailing attitude by many
contributors seems to be: "If the other child plays with my toys, I either
take them and go home, or I find someone to complain to". If we want to be
the adults on this playground, we should behave accordingly.
Please do acknowledge that some newbies (and a few not-so-newbies) really
*are* destructive, at least sometimes. And that's a really *serious*
problem, that we must not ignore simply because it violates our righteous
liberal sensibilities (I have 'em too; I am a libertarian but not an
anarchist).
You seem to be implying that, if we simply were nice to people, cranks,
trolls, vandals, and other destructive elements would be adequately
manageable.
First, Wikipedia has grown a lot. It's the biggest wiki project in the
world. We *can't* make people nice as you suggest. They will be as they
are. We can try, of course; but the point is that we will utterly fail.
I'm trying to be realistic about this. If I thought you were right that
people *could* be made more nice, what you say would be more plausible.
Second, again, our experience with *many* different damaging elements
shows that some people just will not behave, no matter what we try.
Third, your proposal requires that the best members of Wikipedia follow
around and politely educate an ever-growing group of destructive members.
We've tried that. We've lost a number of members as a result, and I
personally am tempted, every so often, to completely forget about
Wikipedia, and resign it to the dogs. But I don't want to do that. I
still feel some responsibility for it, and I think I helped build it to
where it is now. I don't want to see something that I've helped build
wear away into something awful.
>>Note that Everything2 does have a few good ideas, and one of them are
so-called mentors. Newbies are taught the ways of the site by old-timers.
To make this work, however, we need an improved internal messaging system
and a mentor selection process.
We do this automatically, of necessity, on talk pages. No internal
messaging system would be better than direct constructive criticism on
offending pages. And, indeed, this is one of the things that has made
Wikipedia work as well as it has: unlike Everything2, we are working
together on the articles themselves, and in order to work together, we
must respect each other.
But there are some people who constitutionally are unable to work with
other people and who do insist on flouting the rules that define the
community. It would be nice if those taking your view, Erik, would
acknowledge that more often. No amount of niceness and mentoring will
solve that problem.
>>Article certification mechanisms we are currently discussing may serve
as a further incentive for people to come around.
This I agree with 100%.
But one reason I'm worried about the current state of Wikipedia is that we
might have some expert reviewers coming in to do some good work here, only
to be attacked by some eedjit who gets his jollies out of attacking an
expert precisely because she's an expert. That *will* happen, almost
certainly, if the Wikipedia peer review project gets going.
>>IF and only if *all* else fails, [...]
When would we have determined that all else has failed?
>>[...] I believe randomly chosen samples are a bad way to make final
decisions. Slashdot uses such a scheme, and you probably have noticed how
well it works. Decisions should not be made randomly but by those who care
about the subject in question and have all the necessary information. A
random sample tends to make uninformed decisions following a certain
average pattern.
The whole reason behind a random sample is precisely to forestall the sort
of "elitism" and abuse of power that you fear. I fear it probably as much
as anyone, in fact. I also fear mob rule, though. Both are to be
avoided, and I'm confident that with wisdom we can avoid both.
Thanks again for the reply.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell