I tried posting this to the list yesterday and it was sent to the moderation black hole because I replied from an e-mail not subscribed to the list.
> This would be a valid argument if the only
> way to prevent "disruptive yahoos" from
> "get[ting] away with everything" is to ban them.
>
> But it isn't. Rather, merciless
> editing and ignoring personality has
> worked every time so far.
First, from where I stand, the above statment is just not true. 24 did not quit causing problems because we ignored him, he left because we banned him.
And even if it were true it -- by itself -- is not a valid argument against a slightly more liberal banning policy, since it is very easy for one disruptive person to take up a few dozen hours of several people's time.
If our goal is to create an encyclopedia, then we ought consider Lee's suggestion seriously.
I doubt that you agree, but I think that is because you see the experiment in online community as just as important as the goal of creating a free encyclopedia. However, I would argue that our stated goal has always been to create a free encyclopedia, and the members of our community joined primarily because they thought that was a mission worthy of their efforts. That's why I'm convinced that unless building a quality free encyclopedia remains our central mission our community will loose its center and slowly dissolve.
As far as I'm concerned it is still an open question of how much a ban would help us to attract experts. Nor am I certain that such a policy would really make our current core of contributors that much more productive. However, I am certain that these pragmatic concerns ought not be trumped by a prior commitment to an particular philosophical opposition to rules in general. In other words, I'm open to arguments that Lee's proposal would be counterproductive, but not particularly receptive to an assertion that his suggestion is "just plain wrong on the face of it." Or to put it yet another way, I think we've set about performing a noble task, and there's nothing wrong with excluding a few people with different agendas from working on our project, if that's what is required to get the job done.
At the same time, I agree with you that we need to be cautious: in order to protect what we've built so far, and because productive communities like ours are both valuable and fragile. So, I say let's take a good look at the practical details of Lee's suggestion, and its possible consequences, before we decide for or against changing our policies.
-- Mark Christensen