The main issue of this election, (for me) Options

[Peter Damian]

The main issue for me is which of the following two positions a candidate takes:

1. Wikipedia is an experiment in social democracy in which all content contributors must be treated in exactly the same way. No one is 'above the law' of civility.

2. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. That comes first. For that reason, not all content contributors are equal.

I have put this bluntly in order to emphasise the contrast. Obviously those who support (1) will argue that strict enforcement of civility is the only way to build an encyclopedia. Those who support (2) claim that good content contributors are rarely uncivil, and that (1) is being used as a stick, and so on. It really comes down to whether when it comes to choosing, one chooses civility over content (1), or content over civility (2).

For (1). Rlevse - ScienceApologist has gone so far as to accuse him of wanting "to create a particular kind of community rather than create a good encyclopedia". Giano has taken particular issue with his appointing Aervanath on a recent RFA, despite the user having little experience of content contribution. And Coren, who takes a particularly hard line when it comes to civility.

For (2). Jehochman, who gave some excellent answers to my questions, and Sir Fozzie (likewise). Also Casliber, Fish and Karate, and (to some extent) Wizardman spring to mind

Agree/disagree? Which of the other candidates falls into which camp?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kato]

Agree/disagree? Which of the other candidates falls into which camp?

The whole thing is absurd.

What matters is the CONTENT and how Wikipedia, and "Wikipedians", are dealing with that CONTENT.

The interpersonal stuff - all the bannings and blocks and scraps and hypocrisy - can be an interesting sideshow and can act as a Soap Opera worth watching on occasion, but it is the product of the "dysfunctional social network" and has little to do with the stuff kids bring up on their google searches.

That's why some of Lar's questions were interesting to me. Because they addressed BLP issues, Flagged revisions, and hinted of WPs inevitable failure of "reaching a consensus" to move forward with these serious problems. Another crucial question asked whether people supported editor unaccountability / anonymity, and why? Lar's questions can be used as a survey to ascertain whether long term Wikipedos had learned anything over the past 3 years or so, and whether they are prepared to change, move forward, or at least set an example?

All that blather about those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens,and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.