[WikiEN-l] 3RR and gaming the system

Fri Mar 4 19:16:11 UTC 2005

Strongly agree with Danny.

I took a look at the <S>Star Chamber</S> ArbCom page and saw the latest effort against 172. Guess you never get tenure around here.

Meanwhile, groups of users take command of certain pages and trash Wikipedia's possibility of being a reliable encyclopedia for all but the least controversial topics. I can understand 172's frustration, even as I am at opposite ends of a lot of his politics. Take an article like the Attacks of 9/11. I put in content based on any up-close and personal familiarity with the Laws of Land Warfare--i.e., these were war crimes. With citations. Engaging and answering critics' questions on why this is true. Leave it alone for a few months and it's all gone. But everyone's favorite conspiracy theory is in there. Any blame the Twin Towers on Karl Rove yet?

My major point is that we're building a great bureaucracy to attack the out-of-favor Wikipedian, and to edify the Amateur Torquemadas; but I haven't seen us get one inch closer to building some kind of enforceable editorial judgment. Quite the contrary.

Cecropia

----- Original Message -----
From: daniwo59 at aol.com
To: wikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR and gaming the system
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 06:56:31 EST

> 
> There is a serious problem. As the number of Wikipedia rules spiral, we are
> seeing people figure out how to play the rules for their own personal
> edification. Meanwhile, three old-time users--172, AdamCarr, and 
> Mirv, who have
> thousands of valuable edits to their name (regardless of what 
> anyone might think
> of any of them personally)--have either been blocked or left the project in
> the  past 24 hours.
> 
> Frankly, I never supported the 3RR, either the first time it was
> implemented, or this, the second time. I certainly oppose the idea 
> that it takes
> precedence, or is even on an equal footing, with the goal of 
> creating an  _accurate_,
> NPOV, open-source encyclopedia. Comments equating it with that are
> misguided. 3RR was put in place, not as an objective in itself, but 
> as a means  to an
> end, that end being the creation of an accurate corpus of human  
> knowledge. And
> yet, while people are willing to block for violating the 3RR, how  many
> people are willing to block for pushing POV or adding inaccurate  information
> consistently? That is a problem.
> 
> So I reiterate: 3RR is not a goal of Wikipedia. In an ideal world, it would
> not even be necessary. It is merely a means to an end.
> 
> The problem begins when focus solely on 3RR, disregarding our real goals.
> 
> People are gaming these rules. While I would like to believe that most
> people have the good of Wikipedia at heart, the fact is that it is downright
> impossible, given the size of Wikipedia, to follow all the 
> arguments, follow all
> the reverts, and step in when necessary. It once was, but that is 
> no longer the
>   case. Nor is it legitimate to expect people who do not have IRC to get it
> and go  there when they face a problem. This is not an IRC project.
> 
> I do not know the solution to this problem, but I think that it should be
> stated. Personally, I hope that Jimbo appoints a group of trusted users to
> examine the problem and come up with some solutions.
> 
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm