[WikiEN-l] Featured editors?

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:10:07 -0500, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com>
wrote:

>Furthermore, something I'm noticing more and more lately is that
>an inescapable part of this sort of banning and censoring is a
>disquieting element of paternalism.  The removals are performed
>by a small number of presumably-trusted senior editors, on the
>grounds that they know that the material being removed is
>"hurtful to the project".  But since part of the alleged hurt
>is always the associated hype and drama, the removers tend to
>ask that the removals not be discussed either.  We're supposed
>to trust that the person doing the removing knows what's best
>for the project, knows what's best for us, is better at deciding
>for us what we should and shouldn't discuss than we are ourselves.
>Obviously, the bigger and more disparate the project becomes,
>the harder it is to maintain that kind of trust.

This is a very difficult line to tread.  The Wikipedia community in
general is much given to moral panic, and everybody has an opinion
on everything.  

I am a great advocate of discussion.  If a link is removed, good
faith discussion is *absolutely* appropriate.  If the person
removing the link can't make a rational argument then we have a
problem.

On the other hand, there seems to be a presumption in some quarters
that the discussion should only start *once the link is back in*.
This is, to my mind, completely wrong.  If a long-standing editor
identifies anything as potentially damaging, we should extend the
courtesy of discussing it before simply reverting.  It's part of
making sure that Wikipedia is not perceived as evil, and part of
making sure that people have the confidence to contribute to
controversial areas.

We should also remember that what we are talking about here is the
margins.  Most people with strong views do *not* get banned.

We are talking, for the most part here, about banned users, and
banned users tend to advocate content which is pretty  far from the
ideal of NPOV - that's why they get banned.  We are, despite all
that is said here about the margins, extraordinarily tolerant of
dissenting opinion.

There is a lot to be said for one year bans, as handed down by
ArbCom.  If someone goes away for a year and then comes back and
behaves impeccably, well, kudos to them.  If they consistently
attempt to evade the ban, then that tells us something quite
important about them and their attitude to Wikipedia.  If they go
away and actively campaign to damage Wikipedia in retaliation, or
harass the people who they perceive as having banned them, that
tells us something else again.  The more they do that kind of thing,
the less I want to hear what they have to say.  I don't think this
is an especially remarkable viewpoint.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG