On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:04:58 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
Thanks. I don't really have a reasoned objection, or at least not a
categorical one, to this. On admins editing protected articles, I think
the consensus is that they're not really supposed to but I'm not familiar
with the details of consensus on this--just that it proved controversial
when an admin altered the content of [[clitoris]] while it was protected.
I do feel uneasy about the idea of having "trusted" content editors. When
editors have a limited number of collaborators they will inevitably learn
one another's blind spots and edit for consensus within the group.
Without new editors coming along and entering new material out of the
blue, the dynamics of editing would be very different. I'm not against
this at all in principle, but I'd hate to see Wikipedia abandon a winning
formula just because of a few racist nuts. Readers are cleverer than we
think.
You make good points about Wikipedia's winning formula. The current
dispute process has, for the most part, worked very well. I'm just (as
we all probably realise) speaking hypothetically about a system that
might work. You also make good points about the dangers of only taking
consensus among a small group. However, the discussion and call for
consensus would be among the community as a whole, not just among the
moderators. The moderators have the only write access to the article,
but normal users can still discuss the matter. Maybe I'm assuming too
much good faith among the moderators to edit for consensus among the
community as a whole and not just for themselves. Maybe it's just my
inexperience. :-)
Cheers,
DP.