[WikiEN-l] Re: What we need

[Larry Sanger]

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> O.k., I hereby proclaim the following:
> > * We will not tolerate biased content.  The neutral point of view is not
> > open to vote; it's decided.  If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
> >
> > * There are certain other policies as well that basically define us as a
> > community.  We have arrived at them by broad consensus, and they should be
> > respected.  Wikipedians working in good faith should feel empowered to
> > enforce those policies.  They shouldn't have to apologize for doing so!
> >
> > * We will not stop banning vandals.  We should seek out the best ways we
> > know how to make sure that non-vandals are not lumped in with the vandals,
> > but please stop talking as if we'll just stop banning them, because it
> > ain't gonna happen.
> >
> > * We try to help newcomers who want to contribute but don't quite
> > understand the body of good habits (and rules) we've built up.  But we
> > should not and *will* not tolerate forever people who are essentially
> > attempting to undermine the system.  See below.
> >
> > * To whatever extent we are or are not, or should be, a democracy, the
> > following is also true.  We are a benevolent monarchy ruled by a
> > "constitution" or, anyway, a developing body of common law that is not
> > open to interpretation, but not vote.  This has been the case from the
> > beginning, and we aren't going to change that.
>
> None of this is new.

Thanks.  Right, none of it is new, but the fact that you're saying it now,
in the present context when various people are straining to cast one or
more of them in doubt, might be useful to those of us who disagree with
them.

Has anyone posted this on Wikipedia itself yet?

> > In addition to this, it would help a LOT for you to solicit draft
> > statements of policy regarding clear circumstances in which people can be
> > banned for being really egregiously difficult.  There has to be a
> > *reasonably* clear line drawn that distinguishes difficult but
> > on-the-whole useful contributors, on the one hand, from contributors so
> > egregiously difficult that the project suffers from their continued
> > presence.  The policy should codify, for example, the reasons why we did
> > ban 24 and Helga, and the reasons why we might ban Lir.  Let's have a
> > discussion about this, bearing in mind that one option that is *not* on
> > the table is that we might decide *not* to ban people for their trollish
> > behavior at all.  We definitely will, so let's make the policy clearer.
> > You could start the discussion and make it clear that at some point soon,
> > we *will* determine a policy.
> >
> > I don't mean to put words in your mouth of course.  I'm just saying that,
> > IMO, Wikipedia is really suffering, and even losing people.  You're in a
> > position to help embolden the most productive members of the project, who
> > it seems to me are, in at least some cases, getting very discouraged.
>
> I agree with all of this, except with your diagnosis of the current
> situation.  Can you show me examples of "anarchists" who are arguing
> that we "we might decide *not* to ban people for their trollish
> behavior at all"?

First, I DON'T think there is a unified band of people who *call*
themselves anarchists with all the same views.  I frankly don't care about
the word.  The point is that there are now a lot of people about who hate
one or more part of what, in my opinion and it so happens yours, defines
Wikipedia, and that they're trying either to eliminate it or to weaken it
radically (as Cunctator, just for example, would like to do with the
nonbias policy).  Those are the people I am calling "anarchists."  I
should probably call them "Wikianarchists" since their political views
might very well not be in the anarchist camp.

Anyway, you want examples: Cunctator (he is now perfectly clear and
unambiguous about it: see
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-October/006575.html ).
So I trust that Cunctator disapproves of your recent banning of Lir.  TMC
is another easy example.  If you put the question explicitly, you'd find a
number of others, I'm sure.  One person who wrote to me privately
certainly seems to be of this view.

In response to my "In addition to this..." paragraph above, Toby Bartels
wrote:

> IOW, let's decide before the discussion that we will change policy,
> and only leave the discussion open to *how*.
> I support a discussion about policy for banning what you call "trolls"
> (not that Helga, much less Lir, is *actually* a troll),
> but let's not a priori rule out the views of a sizable group.

So he supports a banning policy himself but thinks that there's "a sizable
group" that opposes it.

To put this all in perspective, it really would help to read through
Wikipedia-l discussion from October and November.  It won't be fun, but I
predict it will be enlightening.

Larry
-- 
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell