Jonathan Walther wrote:
I agree with
all of this, except with your diagnosis of the current
situation. Can you show me examples of "anarchists" who are arguing
that we "we might decide *not* to ban people for their trollish
behavior at all"?
The Cunctator springs to mind. As an anarchist myself, I can't say I
agree with him though.
I'm reasonably well-acquainted with the Cunc's views, and I am under
the distinct impression that he supports temporary ip-based bans for
raw vandalism. He prefers it when we have soft security rather than
hard security. He prefers to try to reform people than to ban them,
and so on.
I imagine that he would support not banning people at all, _only if_
viable and superior alternatives can be found. (And I imagine he
supports the search for those viable and superior alternatives.)
So I don't count him as an "anarchist" in the relevant sense.
I don't know about Wikipedia "really
suffering and losing people", but I
am clear that Lirs efforts create vastly more work than the rest of us
can keep up with in "fixing" her edits.
I mean, her edit to the article on Sir Isaac Newton to include
"prisms"... maybe it might be appropriate to mention prisms in the
article, but the way she did it was like she was just trying to fill
someones shoes with wet sloppy diarrhea.
In what sense do you refer to yourself as an "anarchist"? I think
it's important to get beyond the political meaning of the term, which
some people have some affinity for, and recognize that Larry means it
in a specific sense.
Basically, I think that Larry's concerns are way overstated. All of
the things he said we needed were already in place.
--Jimbo