[WikiEN-l] Experiment on new pages

Wed Dec 7 22:42:02 UTC 2005

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 12/7/05, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 12/6/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On 12/6/05, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and
>>>>>it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then
>>>>there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear
>>>>methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy
>>>>change and move on.
>>>>
>>>>Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum*
>>>>start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
>>>>
>>>>I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's
>>>>interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I think these comments are way over the top.  Jimmy *is* interested in
>>>actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.  You may not agree
>>>with the methods, but to call into question his motives is
>>>inappropriate.
>>>      
>>>
>>I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me
>>to question his motives.
>>
>>In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which
>>questioning authority is considered inappropriate.
>>    
>>
>Your comment at the end wasn't even just questioning, it was accusing.
> But anyway, I'm not sure I agree with you that a functional society
>must constantly question the motives of everyone voluntarily given any
>power.  I'd even question just how much "authority" Jimmy does have. 
>He has authority over how to spend the money donated to the foundation
>(so long as he does so for charitable purposes), and not a whole lot
>more.
>
I don't see Anthere's comments as being an accusation of any sort.  I do 
see her comments as representing a significant philosophical and ethical 
perspective.  If a functional society depends on questioning there can 
be no exclusions.  When we exclude someone from questioning we begin a 
process of deification; we hand to that person the power to game our 
ethics. 

Cunc has a track record of questioning, and he's not afraid to ask the 
hard questions.

>I don't think society can function without some basic level of trust. 
>To question whether or not Jimmy Wales is "actually trying things to
>make Wikipedia better" seems to me to be way over the top.  Anyway,
>since you're the one who suggested it, maybe you can tell us just what
>you think Jimmy *is* trying to do.
>
Yes, some level of trust remains necessary.  There is no usually need to 
question every little action, or to take on a confrontational stand to 
every possible issue. Sometimes one needs to consider the alternative to 
criticising; there is, after all, the risk that you you may have to face 
the consequences of being right.  If, in my own mind, I question Jimbo's 
commitment to a fully democratic wiki then I need to be prepared for the 
possibility that he might say, "Yes, you're right, the lunatics should 
have more control over the asylum."  Invariably, the lunatics put us in 
a position where we need to put strings on our democracy.

Ec