[Wikipedia-l] Tokerboy weighs in

[Toby Bartels]

Tokerboy wrote:

>First of all, I like the Cunctster being a prick--he's
>a vaccine against groupthink because no decision will
>ever be unanimous as long as he is here--makes me
>wonder if that's his goal.  Many CEOs and team leaders
>and the like secretly designate one board/team member
>to disagree on every decision, because otherwise
>groups tend to accept the first even remotely viable
>option presented.

I knew that there was a reason that I'm glad that he's here.

>Bad vandals destroy cars, property and occasionally
>people, but a corrupt police force doesn't stop any of
>this and tears apart the community.  The best solution
>is to have the community oversee the police force.

The best solution is to have the community *be* the police force.

>In some
>cities, some gangs have done more to help the local
>community than governmental programs.  The Mafia is
>the same way.

And Hezbollah, for another example.
They all do this in an effort to buy community support,
so that it will be easier to commit their crimes against others.
Mind you, the government does the same things for the same reasons.

>I think regardless of the merit of what I propose
>above, I do believe we should have a Bill of Rights of
>sorts for users without any special status (i.e. not
>even signed in) to more effectively guarantee that
>abuse will not occur.

This is an interesting idea.
A lot of people will balk at the idea that
anonymous users have *rights* to our Wikipedia,
or that any users have *rights* to Jimbo's server.
But to be effective as a wiki,
there are certain states of affairs that need to be preserved,
even if we call them "principles" instead.

>The power
>for general maintenance should be spread out, because
>if the basic rule that only clearcut vandalism and
>nonsense can be deleted is followed, this can only
>help the wikipedia grow.  I think that in 99% of
>cases, a sysop ruling to delete a page/ban an IP
>(currently) is simply because of vandalism.  It's the
>minority of cases where judgement, and potential abuse
>of power, comes into play.  If 99% of the problems is
>one discrete type, then 99% of the enforcement power
>should be directed towards those problems, and the
>other 1% where judgement comes into play should be
>considered separately, because it is a separate
>problem.

I agree with that;
but I also think that that responsibility should be spread out.
Recognising it as a distinct problem is still important.


-- Toby