[WikiEN-l] Grown-ups and children

Mon Mar 7 20:31:56 UTC 2005

> >>A much better analogy is of a school headmaster sorting out who did
what
> >>after a playground fight. We want to know who hit first, who hit
most,
> >>and who chucked in a sly boot from the side-lines.
> >>
> >>
> >That's quite an insulting example actually and elevates the ArbComm
to
> >headmaster while denigrating the rest of us to the status of
children.
> >School is the closest most of us get to being in a dictatorship - I
don't
> >think that's really a great model to emulate. The difference between
the
> >quasi-judicial model and the "headmaster" model is that the former
puts
> >limits on the ArbComm. While I can see why the ArbComm would prefer
to have
> >no limits and be able to do what they wish, including initiate
> >investigations, I don't think that would be healthy for Wikipedia.
> >
> It also denigrates children, who rarely behave as badly as adults.
> (e.g. sports parents shouting obscenities from the stands)  A
comparison
> to a bar fight might have been closer to reality.

There's nothing wrong with providing elevated status to a headmaster.
One of the purposes of a school is to teach children the right way to
behave. Respecting school property and the rights of other pupils are
non-negotiable. That is, the headmaster is not going to stoop to the
kid's level and debate the rules each time a teacher brings a violator
to his attention. He's the "head" because he controls the student
"body". 

Sure, a well-run school will consider changes to the rules, and there's
always the liberality (or magnanimity) of making exceptions, but the
headmaster's *job* is to enforce the rules, in a decidedly asymmetric
way. He's nobody's equal.

At Wikipedia, we all defer to others who have gained our respect. I
always listen to mav and snott rake and Saint Anthere (to name just a
few: the rest know who they are!) because (a) they've shown that they
care and (b) they are right when I'm wrong so often that it's not even
worth double-checking any more.

And kids do not "rarely" behave as badly as adults. The school one block
away from my workplace has countless incidents of kids threatening or
mugging each other, even assaulting teachers (two years ago, a student
was murdered). That sort of thing is exceedingly rare *my* workplace.
(It does not denigrate children, rather it reassures them, to know that
grown-ups are in charge and will protect them.

Okay, maybe a few people feel I lord it over them here. But I make quite
a bit of effort to set a good example myself. Shouldn't those of us who
follow the rules be entitled to take the moral high road occasionally? 

We must reform our system so that a cadre of well-trusted SENIOR members
may exercise a bit of authority over those who cannot or will not
contribute to this project. We are not all equal here, and there's no
need to pretend otherwise. Those of us with a proven track record of
solid contributions and good social skills SHOULD have a greater say on
how this project is managed.

Uncle Ed