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

[Jonathan Walther]

I would be all for your rotating moderators proposal except for one
thing; the user RK.  He has an incredible number of "edits" to his name,
but with his style of trying to (not) work with people, giving him
moderatorship would be like handing a flame-thrower to a psychopath
in a crowded subway station.

I agree with Ed, Isis, and others that "Throbbing Monster Cock" isn't an
appropriate name for the Wiki, even though it is a good joke when you
see the picture of the chicken.

I think Ed, and many others would be great with "moderator" powers.  But
I worry that with powers come the power-hungry, drawn like moths to a
flame.  I'd rather put up with some inconvenience now, than suffer when
the power-hungry finally manage to weasel their way into positions of
power sometime down the road.

Lir is a nuisance, and I'm not sure what the solution to her is.  She
seems to honestly try to contribute, but she just doesn't know how an
encyclopedia should go, and what things are appropriate to put in, and
what things are better left out.  Her articles on Sumer and "Wealth of
the Nations" are good examples.  The problem is she is so prolific;
she overwhelms the small number of editors who are available to "fix"
her modifications.

How do we know she isn't a saboteur sent from the Encyclopedia
Britannica to mess up the Wikipedia?  She has lowered the tone and
credibility of an incredible number of our articles.

But I find it hard to recommend any specific action against her; there
are those who violently disagree with my edits on some religious topics
on the Wikipedia, and if Lir is acted against, how much longer until
they demand that I be limited, merely because of my holding
a different POV from the majority?  I sincerely want the Wikipedia to be
the best it can be; and my intimate knowledge of some of the topics I
edit *is* at odds with what many people believe; what will protect me
from mob rule, when the mob considers my NPOV to be straight-up
false propaganda?

The one thing I can say is I agree that clarification and codification
of our cultural policies are always appropriate.  Our Debian "policy"
document now runs many pages in length, but it lets all of us work
smoothly and harmoniously together, despite being 1000 strong.

Jonathan

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:33:29PM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
>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.

-- 
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021111/f6a7fcf1/attachment.pgp