Wikipedia talk:Protected page/Draft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Steve, I notice you wrote up the draft yourself. May I add a comment (which we should probably take to the Talk page of your proposal) - defining or assigning "roles" to contributors is an oversimplification of views and only a short step away from the ridiculous nature of two-party politics, and two short steps away from demonization of well-defined parties: people won't be able to contribute without being labelled first, and the labels will become an issue rather than individual views and contributions themselves (ie I believe in the cluster of views model rather than the synthesis of two antitheses which sidelines everything else). With that caveat, your proposal is quite fair but instead of you forming a pair with Slrubenstein, I nominate Danny, Zero, or Viajero (no offense - I have followed and trust the contributions of the other users on disputed articles, but don't know much about you). -- Simonides 04:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- "...defining or assigning "roles" to contributors is an oversimplification of views and only a short step away from the ridiculous nature of two-party politics..."-Sim
No, you misunderstand. Roles are not based on political views, (for the most part) but on the highest degree of trust they have within the community.-SV
-
- The degree of trust is a debatable question. I do not trust Slrubenstein, and it doesn't matter to me if he is trusted by the "community", the kind of situation which makes one doubt the good intentions of the community. Once again, assigning roles only risks creating partisanship where it doesn't exist. -- Simonides 19:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- "I nominate Danny, Zero, or Viajero (no offense - I have followed and trust the contributions of the other users on disputed articles, but don't know much about you)."-Sim
Well, sad as it may be, your vote for who participates is just one among other equal votes. And Danny, Zero and Viajero would have to come forward with an interest for acting as moderators (actively making changes) to the page. I have no problem stepping aside, but I do have a problem with your apparent lack of trust. Its a symptom of the m:academic standards disease, a lack of m:wikifaith or simply attachment complex related to the article. We all go through this period where we each feel a need to be responsible for these silly little digital mosiacs we call "articles." -Regards, SV 17:14, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
- I would much appreciate if you tried to stop relegating my objections to your cute, amateur diagnoses. I haven't seen you on or noticed any of your edits or comments to the articles in question when they were being debated, and you haven't displayed any subtle judgement so far, so I don't see how you can expect someone should trust you merely on your say-so when you are not willing to appoint editors unless they have "the trust of the community". Essentially you are suggesting the only people worth trusting are people you trust, which is not quite the right way to assign "roles", and that has little to with academic standards. -- Simonides 19:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I appear as condescending or patronizing... whatever. I do recommend considering my comments (about debate entanglements) as a professional diagnosis that just happens to wrapped up in cute packaging. But 'its a free country,' and you can do what you like.
-
- All of you missed the point entirely about the "New start" on Talk:Anti-Semitism, and Srubenstein might not be in the ideal frame of mind right now - but the idea is that you use the people that you have. This is going to be a much wider discussion, in which case, your going to have to accept the possibility that "trust" is a real concept on Wikipedia, and that people who have been here for years (Slrub, Danny, Viajero etc) have amassed some community trust in terms of how they conduct themselves. Conduct is separate from academics; conduct and moderation need to be dealt with. -SV
