[WikiEN-l] 3RR: Pluses vs Minuses

Fri Mar 4 07:10:55 UTC 2005

On the minus, well, in addition to what I've already written
if there are several persons in the wrong about an article and one 
person in the right, then the one in the minority is severely disadvantaged
by the 3RR ruling.

----- Original Message -----
From: Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Strange fetishes
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:47:40 -0500

> 
> Abe Sokolov wrote:
> 
> > Think of the warning signs that would alert one to the 
> > possibility of groupthink… I still believe that most active users 
> > sign up to Wikipedia with the goal of writing an encyclopedia. 
> > But over time, their behavior is shaped according to a whole web 
> > of relations based on the fetishization and ritualization of the 
> > 3RR and other policies, making them lose sight of the goal of 
> > writing an encyclopedia.
> 
> The 3RR is purposely designed as a trade-off. On the plus side, 
> edit-warriors inserting nonsense cannot do so more than three times 
> per day. On the minus side, users reverting nonsensical edits 
> cannot revert them more than three times in a day. If we assume 
> that there are more "good editors" than "bad editors", then it's a 
> good tradeoff, because there will always be other people around to 
> revert the nonsense editors. Policies like banning repeated 
> edit-warriors through an Arbitration Committee case are intended to 
> keep the number of "bad editors" down so this remains the case.
> 
> (A useful analogy might be to the moral theory of rule-based utilitarianism.)
> 
> -Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- 
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com