Herein my opinion:
At 22:39 11/11/2002 +0000, Larry wrote:
ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia.
[snip]
No, the "problem" now is no worse than it has ever been, at least not since July, when I arrived. If there is a problem, it is manageable.
Vandalism happens in many forms - revert or improve the edits. Simple.
ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of powers to ban and to delete pages permanently. "SoftSecurity" alone is adequate as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.
I don't see how this is the "anarchist" option. I should think the anarchist option, in as much as anarchists can be said to be a unified body (which they're certainly not), would be to give everybody (read "all signed in users") the ability to delete pages, the ability to undelete pages, the ability to block and unblock IPs. I would be in favour of that. But things work as they are now, also, I think.
I love the wikipedia, but sometimes I get the impression that certain people on this list are very bored, and so argue about something when there's really bugger all to argue about. Edit some articles, for god's sake. I thought the idea was to build an encyclopaedia, not argue in circles.
There's my opinion. Sorry I couldn't quite resist mild rudeness. I shall now retreat once more into my shell.
LP (camembert)