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.

Which is it going to be, people?

I happen to think both are possible, but our choice of which to make PRIMARY will make all the difference. "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood..."

If we make Wiki participation primary, and allow anyone with a magic marker and a pair of scissors to come in and deface or cut out any page, eventually the vandals will overcome the project. It won't happen in 2002; but I won't take any bets on the next 3 years.

Clutch has been reined in, somewhat, by my mentoring. Lir has become bearable, but not trustworthy. While I personally don't mind spending 80% of my screen time checking up on the kids, that's because I really am a Sunday School teacher: I see the value in helping kids to grow up. However, others lack the time or patience or "talent" for this kind of mentoring.

Also, as a mentor of my friends' children, I did not only speak softly; I carried a "big stick". I could give a time out, or even do the dreaded letter-to-the-parents ploy. "Johnny, what will your parents do with you if I write them a letter telling them everything you did today?" "Oh, please, don't send that letter! I'll be good!" "Very well, go apologize to Billy." "Billy, I'm sorry I hit you!!"

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)

The reason attendance increased in proportion to order was that the children found out (and told their friends) how pleasant it was to be there. Kids are aware of the difference between order and chaos. They're not all imbeciles or trouble-makers; even the rambunctious ones just want to have fun. As a teacher, I channeled that desire for enjoyment in a positive direction.

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.

Lir proclaimed herself Empress of Wikipedia, if you recall. We others contribute only as she deigns. Maybe this was a joke; I certainly tried to characterize it as such. But in jokes can often be found a germ of truth.

Unless a contributor shows that they place NPOV, et al., above their other goals for participation, then I for one do not and cannot trust them. I don't have to check up after the dozens of contributors I've come to admire. Sure, they might make a typo or grammar error; sure, I can tighten up some wordy prose or wikify it a bit; yes, occasionally they'll get a fact wrong by accident. But when Jeronimo or Axel, to pick just 2 out of many dozens, makes a change -- I rest tranquil in the confidence that I will not have to check for a neutrality violation. I only read the article if I'm curious about the subject.

Like Larry, Julie and the lot, I too get tired of clean-up duty. I would find it less tiresome (A) if more people would be mentors, as Erik suggests; and also (B) if we had moderators with just a bit more power and some rules that were a bit stronger and to the point than "do as you like".

I myself chose the 3 rules of my Sunday School class, after watching Ah-nuld in Kindergarten Cop. I adapted his approach to the situation and after some trial and error settled on (1) no hitting, (2) no grabbing, (3) no teasing. The only sanctions I permitted myself were (A) time-out and (B) "take this letter to your father, please" (i.e., expulsion).

I regard our situation of November 2002 as somewhere between the date I saw Kindergarten Cop and the date I settled upon the "three noes" described above. It was a period of sorting things out, in discussion with parents and church officials.

I took it upon myself to start using power, even before it was authorized. I just decided I wouldn't endure the chaos any more, and like Ah-nuld I "blew the whistle", so to speak: I appointed myself sheriff. Okay, I was a vigilante or an "elitist", a one-man "cabal". But that is often how government arises out of anarchy.

No system is perfect. The US separation of powers into legislative, executive and judiciary isn't perfect. Wikipedia works because Jimbo is a genuinely good guy. It is *de facto* a benevolent dictatorship. What will happen after control and sponsorship passes from his hands is anyone's guess.

I don't really know what is best for Wikipedia. But if I had the power to do so, I would give all sysops banning rights over signed-in contributors; with each ban undoable by any other sysop. Or we could create a super-sysop (moderator) with that power, undoable by any other moderator. This obviously leaves open the question of who should have "ban-a-signed-in-user" power. I guess we could just discuss it on the list, as we do now with granting sysop power.

But whether we do this or not, we need to come up with a clear (and preferable short) list of rules. My Sunday School rules were as short as possible, mainly so that even a 4-year-old could understand them. What is teasing? You said something that hurt his feelings. Don't call someone "stupid", okay? "Okay, teacher." Same with calling a picture someone drew "ugly". If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. These ideas are easy for children to understand.

Wikipedia is not for children. It's run by adults, and nearly 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.

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.

I suggest -- and hereby formally submit for the community's consideration -- that we formulate a set of rules, which like my Sunday School's "three noes" are readily seen as mutually helpful. That is, contributors will follow the rule set we will formulate, BECAUSE DOING SO IS TO THEIR BENEFIT as well as to the benefit of others and the project as a whole.

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

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

Is this is fine, then let's keep it. If it could possibly be improved, let's improve it.

Ed Poor "My opinions are only mine, not my employer's."