[WikiEN-l] agenda promotion, was: Re: Original Research versus Point of View

Thu Jan 20 22:24:12 UTC 2005

--- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

> The only reason this stuff hasn't spread like wildfire throughout
> Wikipedia is because a number of editors have opposed them since they
> first started last May (not always the same group of editors, because
> editors get worn out and give up) and so the material is reasonably
> contained. But it's an exhausting job. If you want to join in, you
> are more than welcome, because one or two of us could do with a
break.

This discussion points up what seems to be the greatest
hazard and roadblock to Wikipedia: the current editorial
model simply cannot cope with determined agenda promotion.

In the absence of agenda promotion, Wikipedia works great.
For 99% (or more) of the articles, the "anyone can edit anytime"
policy works just fine, and produces good content.

However some of the most important (or popular, at least)
articles fall in that tiny fraction. GW Bush, Reagan, Israel
and Palestine come to mind. What I see is that WP can get in
the neighborhood of a great article, but can't ever get
there. It's like driving across town to see a movie only to
have edit warriors grabbing the steering wheel every time
you try to park, so you end up circling the block forever.

Since Wikipedia isn't an experiment in participatory democracy,
there shouldn't be any problem in modifying the "anyone can
edit anytime" policy, since it is not always serving the larger goal
of creating an encyclopedia. My own proposal is that contentious
pages (and only those) be controlled by editorial boards staffed
by demonstrably boring bureaucrats. I'm sure there are a 
multitude of proposals -- I'd certainly like to hear about them.

For what it's worth,
Robert Dodier

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com 