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

[Matthew Woodcraft]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:21:59PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:

> (1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki
> software.

> (2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good
> encyclopedia articles, that's nice too.

Well, (2) is certainly not right. But I don't think (1) is quite right
either. Using the Wiki process isn't the only way to make a free
encyclopedia, as you know well, but it is the way we've chosen. As the
encyclopedia is Free, anyone who wants to try another way is able to get
a head start in doing so by taking our content, and good luck to them.
Those of us who want to carry on using a Wiki can do so here.


So, what does it mean that we are a Wiki? Certainly it doesn't mean that
we have to let any old abuser do anything they want. I think it means
two main things:

1 -- _You_ can edit this page _right now_. I think we should be willing
to work very hard to preserve the ability of any first-time reader of
Wikipedia to make corrections and improvements as they see fit.

2 -- Our main method for dealing with bad edits is simply to fix them.
Ease of editing works for us as much as against us. For every kook and
every troll, there are many constructive users willing to help out.


Now, I am leery of suggestions that we should rely on banning people,
and freezing pages, any more than the absolute minimum we can get away
with. This isn't because I think people who aren't interested in
building a serious encylopedia have a 'right' to edit, or would be
'harmed' by banning. It's because I think these techniques won't work as
well as 'soft security'.

Think about what banning people means. It means having to keep track as
they change IP addresses. It means collateral damage as it turns out
they were working from communal hosts or proxies. In the end, it means
dealing with 'abuse@' their ISP. This kind of work can't be shared very
well. Really, only Bomis is in a position to make official complaints.
There are many, many more of us who can address problems by editing
pages.


I think that dealing with people in positions of authority can be
attractive to trolls. It gives them someone to take aim at, a process to
complain about. If a troll simply finds their changes reverted, by a
different reader each time, _without_ getting into arguments, they're
more likely to take their stupid games elsewhere.

-M-