Let me say that I think much of what Mr. Poor says is well-reasoned and intentioned, even though I'm going to focus on the points which I think are incorrect.
On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Cunctator correctly points out that an analogy could be taken too far. But he misses several points:
- like a Sunday School, the Wikipedia has a lofty goal (higher ideal)
- the enjoyment of peace resulting from not being hurt by others (golden rule)
- I refused to accept students in my class whose parents required their
attendance (no prisoners)
Rather, I said that it was a poor analogy. Yes, there are connections, but there are also crucial differences that preclude doing too much reasoning by analogy (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm).
Cunctator, you're never going to call me "Uncle Ed", because you're not one of the kids. You are the paradigmatic example of the rational anarchist. I may not agree with all your article edits, but I can work with you. I can't really work with Lir and her ilk.
Is anyone going to call you Uncle Ed here at Wikipedia? I hope not. Mr. Poor is essentially right in describing me as a rational anarchist, but I want to make it clear that this is entirely situational; I only think anarchism is to a reasonable degree possible in such a well-defined online space such as Wikipedia. I don't think it's a reasonable real-world answer. It doesn't really work well when people can be physically controlled.
<snip>
Wikipedia is not for children. It's run by adults, and nearly all of them are
men.
Does the fact that men are not children mean that Wikipedia need no rules, no "hard security"? Even anarchy requires guidelines or customs of some sort. If everyone carries swords and knives, then you show an open hand as sign of friendship when you approach another armed man, or you risk a sudden skewering. That's a custom -- not a law.
There are no equivalents to guns or knives at Wikipedia.
<snip>
We have some customs. We need to review and codify them. "Ignore all rules" will have to go. "Please follow the rules or be blocked" will have to replace it.
Doing so will destroy Wikipedia. Rather, the type of contributors will steadily become limited to a certain type of person, which type will over time become more and more limited.
<snip>
Here is a partial list of the customs or guidelines I see as already in place:
- don't delete an entire article or insert random nonsense (no vandalism)
- don't alter other user's comments (no forgery)
- don't write partisan articles on controversial subjects (NPOV)
- don't post copyrighted material, except fair use
The only problem (other than the fair use thing, which is a different kettle of fish) with these guidelines is that they are not equivalent. It's a lot easier to determine if a page has been erased than if someone is being partisan on a controversial subject. "Don't write partisan articles" is about the same kind of guideline as "Don't write dictionary entries". It's a matter of degree.
Here are the 3 enforcement mechanisms:
- anyone can undo a change, thus reverting the vandalism, forgery or POV
violation (soft security)
- a sysop or above can ban an IP address
- developers can ban a signed-in user (not "authorized" but "can")
- Jimbo can ban a signed-in user
You forgot also: * editing to improve entries * peer pressure * mentoring
the enforcement mechanisms that you yourself have used.
There's also the enforcement mechanism of denigrating other people, which some people use.