[WikiEN-l] Re: Vigilantism

[Sheldon Rampton]

I wrote:

>  > One solution might be to designate a few trusted individuals as
>>  volunteer "judges" -- people to whom Jimbo in his capacity as dictator
>>  grants the authority to take action instantly, if they feel conditions
>  > warrant. The decisions of judges, of course, would be subject to
>>  review by the arbitration committee, and a judge who repeatedly abuses
>  > his authority would have it revoked.

To which Mark Pellegrini replied:

>Well, if this is done, I'm not sure why we'd really need the arbitration
>committee.  Just to rubber-stamp judge decisions?

No, not at all. Perhaps I should change my metaphor. Instead of 
"judges" and "arbitration committees," perhaps it would be better to 
use terms like "police" and "juries," along the lines that Ed Poor 
has suggested (see below).

What we're dealing with fundamentally is the need to have some system 
of governance for the Wikipedia. Everyone here (myself included) 
wants to have "as little government as possible," but we need SOME 
rules and SOME enforcement. On Wikipedia, we don't have to worry 
about the worst kinds of crime, like murder or even theft of 
property, but an aggressively obnoxious person can do more harm than 
we ought to tolerate. The situation is rather akin to throwing a 
party in your home. Jimbo has invited everyone in the neighborhood, 
but if some jerk shows up and starts harassing the other guests, it 
would be inconsiderate of the other guests if Jimbo DIDN'T tell the 
jerk to leave. And as owner of the house, he's entitled to do that. 
If the party is large enough and Jimbo can't do this entirely on his 
own, he's entitled to ask some other people he trusts to police the 
party as his surrogates.

In most effective systems of government, there is a division of 
labor. In the U.S. federal government, we have the legislative branch 
(whose job is to write laws), the executive branch (whose job is to 
implement and enforce them), and the judiciary (whose job is to 
determine interpret the laws and their enforcement). Of course, this 
isn't a perfect system (nothing is), but it accomplishes certain 
worthwhile things: (1) it creates a division of powers, which reduces 
arbitrariness and abuse; and (2) it encourages public ACCEPTANCE of 
the government's actions.

We have a similar system in the town where I live: A city council 
that passes local ordinances (the legislative branch); a mayor and 
police who enforce laws (the executive branch); and local courts 
where people can seek judgment if they have disputes (the judiciary). 
Each branch performs a necessary but separate role. The legislators 
establish the rules governing police and the mayor as well as 
everyone else. The police perform a necessary role, but they can't 
simply arrest someone without cause because they know they have to be 
able to defend their actions in court if they are sued. The courts do 
not simply "rubber-stamp" decisions by police and the mayor, although 
often the courts rule in favor of the police.

One of the reasons to have police and a mayor is SPEED OF ACTION, 
because they don't have to go through a deliberative process like a 
courtroom before they can take any action. Imagine that you see a 
crime in progress in your neighborhood and your only recourse is to 
initiate a lawsuit. By the time you even got a court date set, the 
criminals would have completed their crime and be long gone.

Ed Poor also responded to my suggestion, writing:

>Should we invest some users with authority which elevates them from
>"vigilantes" and makes them more like a police force ("judges", as
>Sheldon put it)?
>
>This is essentially Erik's idea, dressed up in an official uniform (hope
>I'm not being tactless, here :-)

Actually, though, the point is that people who are invested with 
authority ("dressed up in an official uniform") are NOT vigilantes. A 
vigilante is someone who acts as a law unto himself and who is 
therefore himself a law-breaker rather than an enforcer of laws.

Of course, the difference between vigilantism and police is not 
always this clear-cut (a theme that has been explored in several 
Clint Eastwood movies), but the basic idea works. We authorize police 
to issue fines and arrest people -- even using physical force if they 
deem it necessary -- precisely because we don't want EVERYONE in 
society using force to have their way. If we are wise, we also limit 
police abuses by having clear laws that limit their powers, providing 
them with training in proper police procedures, and having courts 
that are willing to curb abuses when necessary.

If all of this sounds like a lot of work, it can be. But it's also a 
lot of work for Wikipedians to be continually agonizing anew over how 
to deal with the latest troll.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans (Tarcher/Penguin, May 2004)
--------------------------------