[WikiEN-l] Neo-nazis to attack wikipedia

Mon Feb 7 18:26:20 UTC 2005

steven l. rubenstein (rubenste at ohiou.edu) [050208 04:56]:

> So: I do agree that we need mechanisms to resolve conflict over content 
> (even though I reject this particular mechanism).  I believe that such a 
> mechanism, along with vigorous enforcement of NVOP, No Original Research, 
> and Verifiability will be enough to protect ourselves against any 
> small-scale assault.

If those three were enforced harder - particularly verifiability - we
wouldn't be having most of those problems. One of the charges agsinst
Robert the Bruce in the present arbitration case is systematic removal of
information and references - whether that's found to be the case, I think
it indicates this sort of thing will not be regarded well by the Wikipedia
community.

> But Jay's point is that none of these mechanisms will protect us against a 
> 43,000 person assault.  Fred might be right, that our worst-case scenario 
> will not happen, but I tend to agree with Jay that we need to consider this 
> and think of ways to deal with it.  But I do not think that the solution to 
> this kind of problem will be anything like the mechanisms we currently rely 
> on.

NPOV is not just our secret sauce, it's a shield. (It's a dessert wax *and*
a floor topping.) See, the thing about POV-pushing activists is ... they
act like POV-pushing activists. They're *really obvious*. Even if a call
goes out to a list, they won't really have much clue on how to infiltrate
just from a call.

And remember that most people are in fact sincere and of good will - even
if they're on an activist list, that doesn't mean they will act in bad
faith in the good cause. An editor with a POV is not necessarily going to
*push* POV.

I really am not at all convinced the sky is even close to falling.

- d.