[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)

[Throbbing Monster Cock]

> but when they write nonsense, brazen political
> propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so
> forth

But very often one person's "brazen political
propaganda" is another person's "neutral point of
view".  I don't see any way around this problem.

> some lines that just can't be crossed without the
> community taking a forthright stand against it.

Who defines who the "community" is?  If one person
comes who the "community" sees as a crank, that
doesn't make them a crank.  If twenty people come who
the "community" sees as cranks, that still doesn't
make them cranks.  And if enough cranks come that they
become the majority, does that make the old-timers the
new "cranks"?

Wikipedia strives to neutrally present all points of
view, but that really is impossible since there is no
"gold standard" of neutrality.

> It seems to me that in growing numbers people refuse
> to bow to "peer pressure" or to be "educated" about
> anything regarding Wikipedia.

If there is a difference of opinion where one
wikipedia member is in opposition to five hundred
wikipedia members, then it could just as well be said
that the five hundred are failing to bow to "peer
pressure" or to be "educated" by the one.  Might does
not make right, and the so-called "community" is
dangerously close to mob rule.

If Wikipedia is to have long-term standards, then I
don't see any way to maintain them other than to
simply state that they exist, state that they will be
enforced, and stop trying to justify them behind
higher principles.

Of course, all of this is IMHO.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2