[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Ethics Commitee?

[private musings]

A few responses and replies;

Firstly I'd like to welcome clearly the word of the
hour.....introduced by dg in this thread, but used with some frequency
throughout the wiki on this issue.......... 'querulous' - it's a very
nice word, and I have hope that we may inspire its resurgence in
popular verbiage. It's a little bit like 'whining' but makes you sound
smarter for using it.

per dg on this point;

>Indeed. It's like JB196 complaining that a few of the accounts blocked
>as sockpuppets of his weren't in fact his. I wonder what an editor ethics
>committee would say to such a charge.

I note it took exactly three posts before I was compared to a banned
user - perhaps that's insightful, or perhaps it's part of the problem.

Per sam;

>What is this ethical committee supposed to do?

This is a valid point, and I don't have the answer beyond saying that
any such body should aim to maintain ethical behaviour on the part of
trusted community members - is this not a useful aim?

Per Fredl

>Ethics is good.

I hope you may consider the possibility therefore of a remit to uphold them.

>Running one quiet responsible account and another aggressive
>confrontive, and uncivil, account is just not viable. That's something
>you might do on a MUD.

I agree that that is unacceptable, and wholly disagree that that is
the case. Please please please at least consider the possibility that
I am a rational, calm person who has been involved with wikipedia for
a long while, though not overly intensely, and is passionate enough
about issues that I consider important to try and ensure that I have
(at least) some contribution that can be heard. This is not a MUD, and
I am not aggressive, confrontive or uncivil.

Per Relato;

hear hear.

best,

PM