On 12/4/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
So much for Wikipedia as even a faint shadow of democracy.
Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Never has been. It's a despotic anarchy.
Who cares if banned users vote? They aren't damaging the encyclopaedia by participating in votes. And if their views are extreme, then may I suggest that they will also be very much in the minority.
I'm not sure if you're saying we should go out of our way to let them vote, or just not go out of our way to stop them voting. Probably the letter is correct - we certainly don't need to attempt to get their views represented.
If a banned user reverts vandalism, that's a positive. Undoing the revert is just stupid.
This is the classic troll wedge. Some people will say "they're banned, we want nothing to do with them". Others will say "they're not bothering me, let them stay". There will always be a line. If we allow them to revert vandalism, then they will want to be able to correct typos. If we allow that, they will want to be able to add useful content. Then they will want to be able to participate in RFC's etc etc. Then why did we bother banning them?
(In general, I hate "slippery slope" arguments. But in my experience, this slope genuinely is slippery.)
Steve