You seem to be using the word "cabal" here
in a sense that
is neither derogatory nor ironic. I find that highly disturbing.
You may find it disturbing, but the truth is that there are people like
Jimbo who can make high level decisions, and there are sysops that have
more power than ordinary users. Many of these decisions already happen in
places that most people don't know about (e.g. the mailing list). Glossing
over the truth doesn't make it go away: there is a Wikipedia cabal.
I have already suggested a voting scheme that would democratize the
decision processes by the inevitable administration. Aside from extreme
opinions like "voting doesn't work", I see few arguments against that. We
need to talk openly about this kind of stuff, or what you find disturbing
will turn into a nightmare eventually.
> A decision would have to be made as to which teams
to include in the
> default view, i.e. the one that anonymous and newly registered users
> get. In the short term such decisions may be made by the cabal, in the
> long term I would prefer voting.
If newcomers see only what is approved by a list of
certification teams,
then Wikipedia will no longer be a wiki. There will be a wiki underneath,
which you can get to by registering and then setting your preferences,
but that wiki would be dead without an influx of newcomers.
You misunderstand me. I am absolutely in favor of creating and keeping a
site that is immediately accessible to the newcomer, where the newbie
quickly notices that WP is editable and joins the process. I love wikis!
My idea centers around the facts that
- there will always be many people who just read and who will never be
contributors,
- even for contributors, it is sometimes desirable to quickly find
trustworthy information,
- some contributors would like there to be some distinction between the
work they have invested much time in and the vandalism of a bored Internet
hooligan.
So what I am suggesting is an alternative viewing mode that would *never*
be the default but optional. It would allow me to browse a Wikipedia where
the article about Mozart *can* not just have been replaced by an image
from goatse.cx. Instead, I would view the last certified version of that
article, which hopefully would be brilliant prose.
Instead of just telling people to use Britannica if they want trustworthy
information, we should substitute this part of Britannica -- quality
control -- as well. That doesn't mean we have to give up any part of the
massively collaborative project that WP is becoming. As a matter of fact,
it would hopefully attract all those skeptics that are afraid that
something like the above happens to their sacro-sanct articles -- it could
still happen, but they could find peace of mind in the fact that the
vandalized version would never be certified.
Last but not least, we should not forget that WP is intended to be a
useful tool, not just for those who like to write, but for those who like
to read, too. Be it interested adults or curious children, rich or poor,
we want Wikipedia to be accessible. We may want to distribute it on CD-
ROMs and on paper. Then how on Earth are the schoolchildren in India going
to wade through megabytes of Middle Earth mythology and stubs, if not if
we supply them with at least the option to filter articles according to
criteria developed collaboratively by various teams, working together to
find the sparkling gems among the ocean we are creating?
"Being a wiki" doesn't mean that we shouldn't extend the original wiki
functionality. Had we stayed with that, Wikipedia would have never become
that big. We would still be using CamelCase.
Regards,
Erik