User:Pigman/Protecting the Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pigman/Protecting_the_Project. |
More fluff from my head on Wikipedia.
[edit] The Prime Directive: Protect the Project
Perhaps it's my experience fighting the "vandalses" but I often think too much emphasis is placed on assume good faith as a central tenet of Wikipedia. The five pillars may be important but there's a part of me (possibly a fascist part) which thinks "Protect the project at all costs" should be at a higher level.
The question I often ask myself is "What is in the best interest of the Wikipedia project?" In the light of that question, I start to consider the sacrifice of individual accounts to be acceptable. If people repeatedly violate Wikipedia standards and policies, why treat them as if they are acting with good faith? When does the point come where repeated violations of policy should be treated as antithetical to the concept and execution of the Wikipedia project?
In other words, when do you call a flat-bladed digging tool a troll?
Perhaps this is just a philosophical difference I have with the basic priorities of Wikipedia. Perhaps this basic assumption of good faith despite a history of transgressions is beyond my grasp.
[edit] Who Can You Trust?
The impetus behind the "assume good faith" policy seems to be practical in my analysis. Following it dramatically lowers the, well, drama of interactions on Wikipedia. Some of the difficulties of dealing with strangers in a text-only environment are lessened by following AGF. Incidents of misunderstandings between editors grow fewer with the personal application of this policy/motto.
Yet I see a downside to it: the over-assumption of good faith. There isn't any specific line where I can point and say, "That editor just deliberately took advantage of AGF to manipulate other editors." I doubt there's a way to specify such a point; this is why people tend to err on the side of caution and AGF.
Trolls, however, enjoy drama. It's a major motivation behind their trollish actions. They thrive on doing things to violate community consensus and opinion. It's one thing to act as an individual standing firm in the face of disagreement from others and another to consistently act in a contrary manner.
