[WikiEN-l] Short-lived retreat

[William Pietri]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work,
>> allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to
>> work.
>>
>> I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started
>> pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the
>> possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments
>> I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody
>> editing is impossible.
>>     
>
> I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in
> your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people
> that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the
> case.
>
> Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain
> size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go
> against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have
> managed to make a viable website.
>   

Well, actually, I don't think that was my point. My point was about the 
right attitude to risk.

I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as a "pure wiki" in the way 
that you describe it. Ward, after all, had root and wasn't afraid to use 
it; he's a pretty pragmatic guy. Regardless, that sort of idealistic 
purity is not something I've argued for or am arguing for here.

Just to be clear, I agree that having some number of trusted people with 
some limited set of special powers is probably necessary. And I agree 
that some of the various proposals are unlikely to work as offered. But 
I'm not particularly focused on any of them.

My point is that the particular solution we have now is unlikely to be 
the right one for the next couple of hundred years, and I don't think 
it's even a great one for the next year. Given the necessity of change, 
I'm concerned about attitudes and arguments that seem to apply more or 
less equally against any sort of innovation.

Maybe that's not how you're intending to come across. However, in 
describing Wikipedia as a "well-established institution", in claiming 
"our aim is to reduce risk to the minimum
possible," and arguing against proposed changes without offering 
alternatives or constructive criticism, that's the impression I'm getting.


> There have been multiple requests for evidence that opening up
> adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't
> work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.
>   

I think that's evidence that getting rid of admins won't work. I agree, 
and I don't think anybody is advocating that. But it's not proof that 
opening up adminship to any degree along the spectrum won't work.

Did you happen to see this bit on semi-protection?

http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/17/the-new-york-times-gets-it-exactly-backwards/

I think this is the right spirit to bring to these discussions on 
administrative power, not just editing power. If we're looking for a 
direction to move in, I think the default bias should be to seek more 
openness, and that we should move in more closed directions only with 
reluctance and a sense of (hopefully temporary) defeat.

William