Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 12/6/05, Anthony DiPierro
<wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator
<cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
wrote:
>But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and
>it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
>
>
Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then
there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear
methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy
change and move on.
Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum*
start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's
interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
I think these comments are way over the top. Jimmy *is* interested in
actually trying things to make Wikipedia better. You may not agree
with the methods, but to call into question his motives is
inappropriate.
I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me
to question his motives.
In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which
questioning authority is considered inappropriate.
Your comment at the end wasn't even just questioning, it was accusing.
But anyway, I'm not sure I agree with you that a functional society
must constantly question the motives of everyone voluntarily given any
power. I'd even question just how much "authority" Jimmy does have.
He has authority over how to spend the money donated to the foundation
(so long as he does so for charitable purposes), and not a whole lot
more.
I don't see Anthere's comments as being an accusation of any sort. I do
see her comments as representing a significant philosophical and ethical
perspective. If a functional society depends on questioning there can
be no exclusions. When we exclude someone from questioning we begin a
process of deification; we hand to that person the power to game our
ethics.
Cunc has a track record of questioning, and he's not afraid to ask the
hard questions.
I don't think society can function without some
basic level of trust.
To question whether or not Jimmy Wales is "actually trying things to
make Wikipedia better" seems to me to be way over the top. Anyway,
since you're the one who suggested it, maybe you can tell us just what
you think Jimmy *is* trying to do.
Yes, some level of trust remains necessary. There is no usually need to
question every little action, or to take on a confrontational stand to
every possible issue. Sometimes one needs to consider the alternative to
criticising; there is, after all, the risk that you you may have to face
the consequences of being right. If, in my own mind, I question Jimbo's
commitment to a fully democratic wiki then I need to be prepared for the
possibility that he might say, "Yes, you're right, the lunatics should
have more control over the asylum." Invariably, the lunatics put us in
a position where we need to put strings on our democracy.
Ec