[Wikipedia-l] Our options; *your* opinion requested

[Larry Sanger]

I solicit your opinion--yes, you, humble (or exalted) list member.

I ask you, dear reader and fellow Wikipedian, to offer your mere opinion.
If you want to support it with reasons, that's great, but I'd like us to
hold off on attack each others' opinions for right now, so that we can
actually get an idea of what we all simply think.

If you don't want to send your reply to the list, send it to me, and I'll
do my best to compile a summary.

As I see it, there are two issues under debate: whether there is a
problem; and if so, what the solution should be.

=======

ISSUE 1.  The problem or lack thereof.

PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia.  Many newbies
(and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the
basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer
pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional
actual sanction seems to be solving this problem.  Well-respected, clearly
productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with
these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.

CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their
numbers and effects are perfectly manageable and are not particularly
egregious.  Either "well-respected, clearly productive members of the
community"--whose value is probably overrated--are not being driven away,
in fact, or if they are, so much the worse for them, if they can't thrive
in an open, free atmosphere.

OTHER: [Insert your take on this debate here.]

=======

ISSUE 2.  What to do about the problem, if anything.

The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of powers
to ban and to delete pages permanently.  "SoftSecurity" alone is adequate
as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.

The Status Quo Option: We should continue on as we have been in recent
months, viz., everyone has, for the asking, the power to delete pages and
to ban IP numbers.  There doesn't need to be set policy on when this is
appropriate and when not.

The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and
settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out
by our sysops.

The Moderators Option: Rather than having giving power to all sysops who
ask for it, we should give the power to moderators on a rotating basis.
They act explicitly as judges, adjudicating disputes and building up a
history of cases that allows us to find-tune and rationally apply the
rules that eliminate from our presence trolls and others who simply refuse
to play by the rules.  They are responsible for judging by the rules
fairly, and as a result the office of moderator is rewarded with moral
authority.

Other Option: [Describe your solution here.]

-- 
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell