lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
If we want to give "reliable" users privileges that we don't immediately give to everyone, that's great. But just give them-- don't build a whole system of automating it, just give them to those who ask, and who have earned them. I would far rather that flag be set by a real human being exercising judgment than by some meaningless process.
I understand what you are saying, but
- one of the goals here is to create a system which avoids even the
appearance of favoritism or bias. The process of "earning" the privileges should leave little or no discretion to the owners of the project...
But we do have a specific goal, don't we? I mean we already do hold the one clear bias that we want to produce a useful encyclopedia, as opposed to a chat room or news log. We don't want to be too biased about people or points of view, but we _are_ explicity biased toward our goal, and the folks who have chosen that goal should be free to act to achieve it. I want you and Larry and whoever else you trust to be able to stand up straight and say "this is what we're doing here, this is the way it is" without having to waste your time justifying everything. You've taken on a great responsibility here; don't throw away your power--use it.
- The "privileges" under consideration are really quite small. For
the most part, the concept is to protect the most highly trafficked pages from sheer malicious vandalism. So to "earn" the privilege should be quite easy -- you basically just have to be around for a few days and not be malicious. Even people who we don't like should be allowed to edit pretty much anything, as long as they aren't being malicious and are willing to ultimately go along with community consensus.
"Malicious" is another exercise of judgment. A point system can't tell that all of the edits done by someone were subtle subversions-- say putting "not" in interesting places. Or adding links to non- existent or irrelevant books (how many of us check those?). I suppose it's OK to give random folks the benefit of the doubt and grant them a flag as long as they have a login name and have been around. But I'd still like to make sure that some human can revoke it when necessary.
But for now, we're just interested in tightening things up *just the tiniest amount* on *just the most likely pages for vandalism*.
I do respect the small-steps argument. Making wholesale changes too quicky risks spoiling what does work well. 0
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
But we do have a specific goal, don't we? I mean we already do hold the one clear bias that we want to produce a useful encyclopedia, as opposed to a chat room or news log. We don't want to be too biased about people or points of view, but we _are_ explicity biased toward our goal, and the folks who have chosen that goal should be free to act to achieve it. I want you and Larry and whoever else you trust to be able to stand up straight and say "this is what we're doing here, this is the way it is" without having to waste your time justifying everything. You've taken on a great responsibility here; don't throw away your power--use it.
Thanks! And yes, we will. I agree with all of this.
Openness is a means to an end here -- the end is our shared vision for a free public encyclopedia. If we elevated the openness above the goal, for instance by refusing to make *any* judgments, we'd be doing the wrong thing.
On the other hand, I'm of course also willing to see things that I disagree with make it into the encyclopedia. In a sense, I view my role (and Larry's) as having two complementary parts: one, as a participant, I want to make sure that I don't privilege my own views relative to other participants. Second, as an administrator, I want to act forcefully to toss out vandals and kooks.
Obviously, there could be tension between these goals at times.
"Malicious" is another exercise of judgment. A point system can't tell that all of the edits done by someone were subtle subversions-- say putting "not" in interesting places. Or adding links to non- existent or irrelevant books (how many of us check those?). I suppose it's OK to give random folks the benefit of the doubt and grant them a flag as long as they have a login name and have been around. But I'd still like to make sure that some human can revoke it when necessary.
But for now, we're just interested in tightening things up *just the tiniest amount* on *just the most likely pages for vandalism*.
I do respect the small-steps argument. Making wholesale changes too quicky risks spoiling what does work well.
*nod*
I agree with everything you have said, I suppose.
How about if we sum it up like this: we'd like to have an easy, automatic, and nearly invisible process whereby anyone who participates is empowered to edit even the most active pages on the site, without permission or oversight from anyone. But, we also reserve the right to toss jerks out on their ears, and to resort to more extreme "privileges" regimes, if it becomes absolutely necessary.
The main thing I want to do is reassure everyone that in no way do I think that any security measures should work to turn this into "Jimbo's Personal Club Of People Who Agree With Jimbo About Everything". :-)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org