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:

[Obesity]

No one disagrees that it would be nice if Wikipedia if were as harmless to the populace as Citizendium.

Has anyone ever tried to read Citizendium? It's... shall we say... not very good. A quick browse through the contribution of its "experts" reveals a serious lack of time and motivation on the part of all but a tiny handful of them.

My blog doesn't harm a soul, but that's mostly because it's boring and no one ever reads it.

Why does anyone write anything (not just WP articles)?

Take away motivation to edit (fun, lulz, fame, profit) and you take away the encyclopedia--that's exactly why Nupedia failed, as I understand it. When Kato is made in charge, and he kicks all the kids out of the clubhouse, he'll realize that the adults don't want to play either. His idea to bring in advertisers/give the good editors $$$$$ idea is intriguing, but I guarantee you it would lead to corruption very different from the sort to which we wikipediots have become accustomed. Can you imagine entrusting Jimbo and David Gerard with deciding who gets to be a "professional" paid editor? Ugh. Maybe they would let us put it to a vote--RfA style.

It's obvious to me that Wikipedia's ginormous army of eager volunteers and the corresponding social networking/shiny toy-like appeal is its biggest strength as well as its curse.

Wikipedia will never work unless it makes itself an equally fun and welcoming place for experts as it already is for unqualified morons. I would focus on drastically improving the experience for the former while wishing you sardonic good luck in expelling the latter.

I suggest that people like Kato should forget about reforming Wikipedia and focus on aiding in its obliteration. Maybe engineer a DoS attack or get a bunch of admin accounts or something. I believe that, from your perspective, the very constitution of the project itself is irredeemably rotten, and I don't altogether disagree with your position.

Turning Wikipedia into something like a bigger, online version of Encarta or some shit is an admirable goal, but you're never going to cram WP's bulging, embarrassing, occasionally delightful excesses into such a dreary mold. It just don't fit.

This post has been edited by Obesity: