[WikiEN-l] Pedantry on privileges

[stevertigo]

Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Much confusion, it seems to me, between two "metrics" or axes: one to do
> with fallibility (anyone can make mistakes relative to unfamiliar or
> even familiar situations on the wikis, particularly when "implementation
> details" are in the hands of self-selected groups and process wonks);
> and another to do with politicisation (in which the default assumption
> is of bad faith in those who would disturb a supposed equilibrium) which
> is a version of small-c conservatism. The BOLD editor has trouble on
> both fronts ("you're doing it out of process" and "anyway change is only
> allowed after long debate").

In other words there are two kinds of BOLDness, the creative,
contributive, substantive kind, and the other kind. We seem to be
getting a better picture now of why the adversarial system only works
up to a point. In a perfect encyclopedic/journalistic environment
conflicts would be resolved by discussions, and discussions would be
won by the validity of arguments. We've seen people gaming the system
successfully, such that the BRD cycle is only as good as the mediation
and arbitration systems around it. (RFM apparently has a big backlog).

I'll go one step further: Wikipedia is important, and its essential
that we codify our work in accordance with concepts of
professionalism. We've long understood NPOV to be our [[objectivity
(journalism)]] equivalent, and just as in journalism we should label
certain types and modes of editing as literally ""unethical.""

-SC