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(a)hackish.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)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(a)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