[WikiEN-l] Policy on Reversions?

Thu Nov 20 12:24:34 UTC 2003

On 11/20/03  at 02:50 AM, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> said:

> Erik wrote:
> >...
> >A code of honor works well for small projects with 
> >like-minded people. Wikipedia is neither small nor 
> >like-minded. That's why it needs policies which are 
> >actually followed through, and not just a call for 
> >WikiLove every now and then. We don't need a 
> >WikiGestapo, but we need a certain amount of policy 
> >enforcement and clear rules, and that's just not   
> >happening. As a result, NPOV is mostly theoretical for 
> >many of the controversial articles on Wikipedia.

> Sadly, I think you are right. Bureaucracy expansion.... Hm. 

Any such heterogenous community needs structure but that needn't, IMHO,
imply "bureaucracy" which to me implies hierarchy and a convoluted
decision-making process. To avoid hierarchy, we need to ensure that
"power" remains a temporary priviledge and individuals don't develop
vested interests in having it. Likewise, decision-making needs to be
transparent without becoming the kind of public airing of dirty laundry
that [[Problem users]] now is.

> One possible idea:
> Somebody mentioned a "3 revert" rule where anything more than 3 reverts
> in an  article content dispute by any party (not to be confused with
> reverting  simple vandalism), is grounds for a warning. If within a
> certain amount of  time, say a month, they go pass 3 reverts on the same
> article again, then  they get a final warning. Strike three in the same
> month and they are banned  from editing for a week. After that they can
> come back on probation (3 months  long maybe?). At that point: 1
> probation violation gets an automatic 1 week  editing ban, second one
> gets 2 weeks and the third gets them a HardBan for at  least the
> duration of their probation period. 

These rules seem kind of complicated at first glance but are probably a
step in the right direction. However,  some entity needs to *make* these
decisions (it can't all be coded in software!). A subset of sysops would
be the most obvious choice, but, as I suggested in an earlier post, a
small rotating team of three or five would be preferable so as to prevent
the appearance of WP being dominated by a small clique.

> But we also need a way to resolve disputes. 

Yes, something urgently needs to supercede [[Problem users]], which is
currently the only recourse now available. What happened to the mediation
and arbitration teams discussed here a few months ago?

V.