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

Sat Nov 9 20:37:00 UTC 2002

Larry,

I'm not familiar with Helga's writings, so I cannot comment on that  
specific case. In general, I do not see the problems you see. There will  
always be edit conflicts, and giving a small, however selected elite  
control to resolve them seems like an awful idea. Sure, many times those  
who are shouting against the majority are just cranks. Sometimes, however,  
they happen to be right.

Note that one of your favorite "bad examples", Everything2, is an example  
for a community that has been completely eroded by a supposedly benevolent  
elite (albeit not a random, changing one).

I am, like many others, a big believer in the concept of "soft security".  
If we want Wikipedia to develop in a certain fashion, we should try to  
enforce our rules through peer pressure. People who violate NPOV should be  
educated about its purpose. Antagonistic statements of the "if you don't  
like it, leave" sort do not cool down conflicts, they drive and fuel them.  
Express respect for the other person's view, and try to find a way to  
integrate it without violating NPOV.

If this kind of behavior was more effectively trained and practiced by  
Wikipedia regulars, I believe we could deal with seemingly destructive  
newbies much more rationally. But the prevailing attitude by many  
contributors seems to be: "If the other child plays with my toys, I either  
take them and go home, or I find someone to complain to". If we want to be  
the adults on this playground, we should behave accordingly.

Note that Everything2 does have a few good ideas, and one of them are so- 
called mentors. Newbies are taught the ways of the site by old-timers. To  
make this work, however, we need an improved internal messaging system and  
a mentor selection process.

Article certification mechanisms we are currently discussing may serve as  
a further incentive for people to come around. If we get this right, the  
biggest honor a Wikipedia author can receive is to contribute to an  
article certified by a high number of users -- something that is worth  
striving for. Hopefully, this will motivate at least some people to  
examine their behavior.

IF and only if *all* else fails, I believe randomly chosen samples are a  
bad way to make final decisions. Slashdot uses such a scheme, and you  
probably have noticed how well it works. Decisions should not be made  
randomly but by those who care about the subject in question and have all  
the necessary information. A random sample tends to make uninformed  
decisions following a certain average pattern.

I'm not entirely against content-based bans, but I believe open voting  
would be necessary in such situations. See my previous posts on the  
subject for ideas how to implement this properly.

Regards,

Erik