I think Mr. Sanger is writing from a place of familiarity with Wikipedia at the highest levels. Many of the things he criticizes may negatively impact the functions at the top, but make the on-ramps and experience at the bottom fantastic.
I am not a frequent Wikipedia contributor in the least, but have been friends with some in highschool, college, and through to today, so I have some familiarity with the rules and culture.
Nine theses deserve at least nine responses:
1. At the top level, consensus breaks, but if you look at Wikipedia from the bottom up, it is a collection of research and publishing decisions reached by consensus.
2. Competing articles is a ridiculous idea for a publication whose goal is to be neutral and factual. If the wikipedians are the problem, it's never been easier to publish your own research either in another wiki or just a blog post.
3. The list itself says it is specifically not a list of banned sources, although I'm sure it's referenced as more of an authority than it should be.
4. The current neutrality policy and guide on writing from a neutral point-of-view is battle-tested, growing from the original neutrality policy. Almost like case law in modern legal systems.
5. No argument here. Maybe Ms. Frizzle's motto from The Magic Schoolbus would be a better fit. "Take chances, make mistakes, and get messy!"
6. Deanonymization is another point that's fine at the top level, but breaks down where the real work happens. When the expectation is that "real" editors use their real identity, that will trickle down to the rest, which will have a chilling effect.
7. Public rating of articles exists and it's called the "Edit" button. If you think an article is bad, the only way to fix it is to fix it. And you're empowered to do so, even without an account.
8. Having been a moderator on a handful of platforms over the years (never Wikipedia), if you need to ban someone, they should probably be banned indefinitely. Review is not necessary. If you've stopped the bannable behavior, you can 100% come back with a different account, and no one will hunt you down for ban evasion.
9. An elected legislature sounds fine for another project. The current state of popular elections and representative democracy in the real world doesn't make me too hopeful that it's a great solution to alleged mismanagement (unless of course you want your side to be the ones mismanaging things.)
yesfitz•3mo ago
I am not a frequent Wikipedia contributor in the least, but have been friends with some in highschool, college, and through to today, so I have some familiarity with the rules and culture.
Nine theses deserve at least nine responses:
1. At the top level, consensus breaks, but if you look at Wikipedia from the bottom up, it is a collection of research and publishing decisions reached by consensus.
2. Competing articles is a ridiculous idea for a publication whose goal is to be neutral and factual. If the wikipedians are the problem, it's never been easier to publish your own research either in another wiki or just a blog post.
3. The list itself says it is specifically not a list of banned sources, although I'm sure it's referenced as more of an authority than it should be.
4. The current neutrality policy and guide on writing from a neutral point-of-view is battle-tested, growing from the original neutrality policy. Almost like case law in modern legal systems.
5. No argument here. Maybe Ms. Frizzle's motto from The Magic Schoolbus would be a better fit. "Take chances, make mistakes, and get messy!"
6. Deanonymization is another point that's fine at the top level, but breaks down where the real work happens. When the expectation is that "real" editors use their real identity, that will trickle down to the rest, which will have a chilling effect.
7. Public rating of articles exists and it's called the "Edit" button. If you think an article is bad, the only way to fix it is to fix it. And you're empowered to do so, even without an account.
8. Having been a moderator on a handful of platforms over the years (never Wikipedia), if you need to ban someone, they should probably be banned indefinitely. Review is not necessary. If you've stopped the bannable behavior, you can 100% come back with a different account, and no one will hunt you down for ban evasion.
9. An elected legislature sounds fine for another project. The current state of popular elections and representative democracy in the real world doesn't make me too hopeful that it's a great solution to alleged mismanagement (unless of course you want your side to be the ones mismanaging things.)