Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not." |
Contents |
[edit] Wikiblower protection
Wikiblower protection is egalitarian alternative to elitist policies such as WK:IAR, which inpractice apply to some and not to others. egalitarian protection prevents contributors from being sanctioned for violating small rules in the pursuit of the larger goals of Wikipedia. Wikiblowing may takes the form of unilateral deletion. However, it may refer to any act of constructive boldness in violation of policy. The unilateral protection of a controversial page may be considered an act of Wikiblowing.
Extending Wikiblower protection relies on assuming good faith that the conduct was intended to help resolve problems that the community was unable to address by normal means. Because editors may disagree with this assumption, calls for Wikiblower protection are likely to be contentious.
[edit] Proportionality
Inevitably, some people will be granted more latitude in violating the rules than others. In applying Wikiblower protection, the proportionality of the present benefit to the present harm is the deciding factor rather than the informal cliques or past contributions which would serve generally to protect only a few wiki-insiders. Wikiblower protection is therefore a means of defining the general case in which "anyone who edits" might be equally entitled to the privileges and protections of senior administrators, and exists as an alternative to a hypocritical hierarchy.
[edit] Arguments
Arguments in favor of Wikiblower protection hang on the principles of proportionality and providing for the common defense. Every organism and organisation requires a system of identifying threats to survival and taking necessary steps to meet them, some of which will violate normal operation. A rational defense is proportional to the threat. An irrational reaction lacks this characteristic. The benefit of such a policy is that it applies fairly to all members of the community whereas alternatives rely on a system of hierarchy and priveledge in which those with authority are immune from the rules they set for others. Editors may contest the designation of a specific act as "Wikiblowing," even if they agree with the basic idea of Wikiblower protection by showing that the harm exceeds the potential benefit.
Arguments opposed to Wikiblower protection hinge on the need for stability and hierarchical control structures within the Wikipedia system. Those on this side note that minor Wikipedians should avoid unilateral and disruptive actions in violation of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and the basic principle of rule by consensus while major Wikipedians must be free to "excersize wisdom and authority" - that is to "Act on behalf of god". The alternative to a facts-based rule, is inevitably a person-based rule which is to say no "rule" or standard at all - except the royal line of ascension.
On the other hand, some oppose the proposed "Wikiblower protection" policy on the grounds that the proper alternative is applying policies, including WP:POINT to all, without respect of persons, and that no one needs or should receive immunity to consequences for a disruptive action merely because it is claimed that such an action draws attention to a perceived problem, whether the person is brand new or the founder of Wikipedia. Such arguments point out that there are various ways to draw attention to a perceived problem and to propose and gain consensus for policy to deal with it, without resorting to out-of-process deletions.
