[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[Gracenotes]

On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then you have to trust the oversighters.
>
> Look, Wikitruth was able to evolve because we regarded adminship as
> "no big deal" while giving admins access to deleted material. That
> meant we regarded undeleting deleted material as "no big deal." When
> it started happening, we realized that in fact it was biggish, and we
> developed oversight, which is restricted to fewer people than
> adminship.
>
> But the people with oversight are selected by the community (most of
> whom are unknown) from the set of current admins (most of whom are
> unknown). So in fact, nothing has changed.
>
> All that has to happen now is for Wikitruth (or anyone else interested
> in causing trouble) to get someone on the ArbCom so they have access
> to oversight. It's only a matter of time before it happens.
>
> This is the rule of evolution. Niches will be filled. The only way to
> thwart it is to anticipate and fill the niches ahead of time. We seem
> to be very bad at doing that.
>
> What I am arguing here and elsewhere is that one of the very obvious
> niches is that people can get to be admins by hitting revert for a few
> months. I think we need to put a stop to that.


Far more good has come out of the "no big deal" idea. Let's not let
a couple of bad apples spoil the atmosphere that makes Wikipedia
fun to work in. Yes, they happen to be influential apples, but there
are other solutions to this problem than crushing the attitude that
has brought Wikipedia so much good.

Consider the attitude we're supposed to hold about blocking people.
It's preventative, right? In theory, at least. However, blocking almost
always has a punitive effect, even though we are told to ignore that
aspect and only consider it a preventative tool. Same with the "no big
deal" attitude. Often, admins can make waves with controversial
deletions, discussion closings, and blockings; that's true. But
"no big deal" is the best system we have.

Suppose that blocking was considered punitive. Then we would have
to determine how long a vandal should sit in a corner until he learns
his lesson, or examine how many personal attacks an edit warrior made.
But thankfully, that's not the case. Our blocking policy is simplified,
and made much fairer, by effecting questions like these: "Can I
prevent this person from making personal attacks by blocking him/her,
and thus protect other Wikipedians, assuming that he/she knows not
to do this and has been given fair warning?" "To what extent will
blocking this vandal stop vandalism but ensure reasonable compliance
with assuming good faith and the 'anyone can edit' attitude?"

Suppose that adminship was considered a big deal. Then everyone
would have different standards for what would make someone "worthy"
enough to be an admin, and everyone exercising those standards at
once will make it impossible for anyone to pass an RfA. Some would
value a contributor based upon his/her article edits; others, upon his/
her technical work; others, upon his/her interaction with the community;
others, upon his/her work in reverting vandals. All these valuings going
on at once could make any contributor seem like he/she has no
worth to the community. So here's my opinion: discard these stupid
value systems.

In fact, this is what RfA is turning into: enforcing personal
standards and expectations and demanding all sorts of shrubbery.
People have agreed that RfA needs reform. The "no big deal"
attitude constitutes the direction we *want* to be going in. If someone
can possibly benefit from the tools, give them to him/her. If they abuse
the tools, take them away. If you can't track abuse, create a technical
means to track it (this last part is particularly relevant to your
concerns).
This is a volunteer project. Everyone will find a constructive niche, and
looking down on one because it doesn't match your favorite niche is
not going to help anyone.

Look, abuse happens. It is naive to expect that Wikipedia can grow
to the extent it has without abuse happening often (all sorts). Spend
a reasonable amount of time and effort trying to prevent it, but making
adminship considered a big deal is too damaging a prospect.

--Gracenotes