lcrocker(a)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". :-)
--
*************************************************
*
http://www.wikipedia.com/ *
* You can edit this page right now! *
*************************************************