[WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards

Tue Mar 8 00:27:55 UTC 2005

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:13:37 +0000, Abe Sokolov <abesokolov at hotmail.com> 
wrote:
 > Aside from the issue of capacity, there's also the matter of credibility,
 > particularly public credibility. Even if the Wikipedia community has more
 > trust in the arbcom now, we cannot infer based on that observation that
 > Wikipedia readers or the public will hold it in any high esteem. Frankly,
 > many people (to say the least) would be highly skeptical of an 
encyclopedia
 > whose editorial concerns are officially handled by teenagers. (This isn't
 > calling into question the abilities of the teenage arbom members; IMO at
 > least two of them have more sense in them than many of the older 
members put
 > together.) Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot
 > afford to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work 
having any
 > meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia 
articles
 > and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our time.
 > -172

If we are going to worry about puplic perception, some would argue that 
the first thing we should do is work on making Wikipedia 
child/offendable safe. I've been a strict opponent of censorship on 
Wikipedia myself, but I think that issues regarding potentially 
offensive content is has more potential for damage to our credibility 
than unenforced content guidelines. I agree that quality control is a 
valid concern, however I thin that if the justification is public 
perception, potentially offensive content tops that list.
-- 
Michael Becker