On 10/24/02 6:41 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
People enforcing social norms by quickly reverting the
work of vandals
and antisocial jerks is SoftSecurity, if those people are organized and
empowered with social authority that makes no difference, except now it
may seem reasonable to some folks to call that group a "police force" --
which BTW is not Ed's term, but yours.
I hardly implied it wasn't. It is the case organization and empowerment with
social authority make only a limited difference from self-organization.
However, that is not what Ed said. He was discussing granting special powers
to a group of people differentiated not by social authority but by the law
of the code (admins).
I just want to make clear that I too very much want to find solutions to the
problems we have with recalcitrants. Our best approach is to figure out ways
to make the problems disappear, not ways to fight them.
Yes, I am talking about special powers -- but not simply an arbitrary _degree_
of power, which is what we have now. Developers can ban anyone, anytime, and
are answerable only to Jimbo. Sysops can ban an IP, and any other sysop can
unban that IP.
And those developers should never do so.
But it's all arbitrary, unless there is a
consensus on what rules these
bannings are intended to enforce.
Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100
times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will
we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an
elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes
out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
I'm not hitting a single note. I'm not saying, just give me power. I'm not
saying make everything a matter of dry, rigid rules.
But sheer anarchy tempered by three dudes with shotguns isn't my cup of tea
either.
I agree with you. You want answers? Here's what should be done. One thing to
consider is whether we can figure out a way to make IP banning 99.999
percent unnecessary. If we can do that, then we can reserve that power for
Jimbo, our GodKing (see MeatballWiki).
In the meantime, here are things to consider, in some kind of descending
hierarchical order:
* make IP bans automatically time-limited. (definitely)
* make sysop status automatically granted. (should happen)
* state policy that if you make a bad IP ban, your sysop status will be
revoked (until it gets automatically granted again)
* allow sysops to enforce the above policy (that is, allow sysops to
un-sysop other sysops)
* make un-sysoping two-way; that is, you temporarily sacrifice your sysop
power to temporarily remove another's sysop power
* get rid of the VANDALISM IN PROGRESS page or at least rename it to
something less violently alarmist
There are many other interesting things that could be done. But I think the
best thing would be for us to avoid paranoia and take a concrete measure of
what the worst anyone can or has done.
One article being irrationally skewed can be a big pain in the ass,
especially if you care about the subject and know it well, but it's not that
important overall. It's only important if it becomes a problem
statistically--many articles for an extended period of time. That is what
must be avoided.
Another good place to start is to notice what causes difficulties for you as
an editor for undoing problematic edits. Consider what interface tools would
make it easier to "fix" "problems".
(I put those quotes because we also need to make sure that "unfixing" is
just as easy.)
I hope this makes some sense.