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

[The Cunctator]

Let me say that I think much of what Mr. Poor says is well-reasoned and
intentioned, even though I'm going to focus on the points which I think are
incorrect.

On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Cunctator correctly points out that an analogy could be taken too far. But he
> misses several points:
> * like a Sunday School, the Wikipedia has a lofty goal (higher ideal)
> * the enjoyment of peace resulting from not being hurt by others (golden rule)
> * I refused to accept students in my class whose parents required their
> attendance (no prisoners)

Rather, I said that it was a poor analogy. Yes, there are connections, but
there are also crucial differences that preclude doing too much reasoning by
analogy (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm).
 
> Cunctator, you're never going to call me "Uncle Ed", because you're not one of
> the kids. You are the paradigmatic example of the rational anarchist. I may
> not agree with all your article edits, but I can work with you. I can't really
> work with Lir and her ilk.

Is anyone going to call you Uncle Ed here at Wikipedia? I hope not. Mr. Poor
is essentially right in describing me as a rational anarchist, but I want to
make it clear that this is entirely situational; I only think anarchism is
to a reasonable degree possible in such a well-defined online space such as
Wikipedia. I don't think it's a reasonable real-world answer. It doesn't
really work well when people can be physically controlled.

<snip>
> 
> Wikipedia is not for children. It's run by adults, and nearly all of them are
men. 
> Does the fact that men are not children mean that Wikipedia need no rules, no
> "hard security"? Even anarchy requires guidelines or customs of some sort. If
> everyone carries swords and knives, then you show an open hand as sign of
> friendship when you approach another armed man, or you risk a sudden
> skewering. That's a custom -- not a law.

There are no equivalents to guns or knives at Wikipedia.

<snip>
> We have some customs. We need to review and codify them. "Ignore all rules"
> will have to go. "Please follow the rules or be blocked" will have to replace
> it.

Doing so will destroy Wikipedia. Rather, the type of contributors will
steadily become limited to a certain type of person, which type will over
time become more and more limited.

<snip>

> Here is a partial list of the customs or guidelines I see as already in place:
> * don't delete an entire article or insert random nonsense (no vandalism)
> * don't alter other user's comments (no forgery)
> * don't write partisan articles on controversial subjects (NPOV)
> * don't post copyrighted material, except fair use

The only problem (other than the fair use thing, which is a different kettle
of fish) with these guidelines is that they are not equivalent. It's a lot
easier to determine if a page has been erased than if someone is being
partisan on a controversial subject. "Don't write partisan articles" is
about the same kind of guideline as "Don't write dictionary entries". It's a
matter of degree.

> Here are the 3 enforcement mechanisms:
> * anyone can undo a change, thus reverting the vandalism, forgery or POV
> violation (soft security)
> * a sysop or above can ban an IP address
> * developers can ban a signed-in user (not "authorized" but "can")
> * Jimbo can ban a signed-in user

You forgot also:
* editing to improve entries
* peer pressure
* mentoring

the enforcement mechanisms that you yourself have used.

There's also the enforcement mechanism of denigrating other people, which
some people use.