On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:21:59PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
(1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software.
(2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good encyclopedia articles, that's nice too.
Well, (2) is certainly not right. But I don't think (1) is quite right either. Using the Wiki process isn't the only way to make a free encyclopedia, as you know well, but it is the way we've chosen. As the encyclopedia is Free, anyone who wants to try another way is able to get a head start in doing so by taking our content, and good luck to them. Those of us who want to carry on using a Wiki can do so here.
So, what does it mean that we are a Wiki? Certainly it doesn't mean that we have to let any old abuser do anything they want. I think it means two main things:
1 -- _You_ can edit this page _right now_. I think we should be willing to work very hard to preserve the ability of any first-time reader of Wikipedia to make corrections and improvements as they see fit.
2 -- Our main method for dealing with bad edits is simply to fix them. Ease of editing works for us as much as against us. For every kook and every troll, there are many constructive users willing to help out.
Now, I am leery of suggestions that we should rely on banning people, and freezing pages, any more than the absolute minimum we can get away with. This isn't because I think people who aren't interested in building a serious encylopedia have a 'right' to edit, or would be 'harmed' by banning. It's because I think these techniques won't work as well as 'soft security'.
Think about what banning people means. It means having to keep track as they change IP addresses. It means collateral damage as it turns out they were working from communal hosts or proxies. In the end, it means dealing with 'abuse@' their ISP. This kind of work can't be shared very well. Really, only Bomis is in a position to make official complaints. There are many, many more of us who can address problems by editing pages.
I think that dealing with people in positions of authority can be attractive to trolls. It gives them someone to take aim at, a process to complain about. If a troll simply finds their changes reverted, by a different reader each time, _without_ getting into arguments, they're more likely to take their stupid games elsewhere.
-M-