Fri 13th May 2011, 9:07am
QUOTE(chrisoff @ Thu 12th May 2011, 2:00pm)
The joke accounts exemption was added by one user to the policy by Jehochman, an admin, with no community concensus.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=405882394
Darwinbish ran for admin. How are new users, or those not in the cabal supposed to make sense of this?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=407658504
I hate to be a Wiki-lawyer (and I usually don't agree with much of Jehochman's actions), but Jehochman is technically in the right in this case. Wikipedia policies usually begin as de facto
common practices and, after a long time, become de jure
policies. Early on, Wikipedians just did whatever they thought was best and what they did became policy for good or ill. Jehochman has stated that it is a common practice
for Wikipedians to accept (or at least begrudgingly tolerate) alternate humor accounts. Except for a few complaints, there has never been an uprising or community discussion to put an end to alternative accounts or limiting their use. Until then, Darwinfish and friends are free and clear. Unless those accounts act in a way to sway a consensus discussion as a bad sock would, they are only, at worst, annoying. And if being annoying is enough to get people banned from Wikipedia, there would hardly be any Wikipedians left!
It does seem that in recent years, you can hardly sneeze without a community discussion on Wikipedia. That isn't how it was before and it is downright impossible to gather enough of anything you could call "Community consensus" to make any changes. The purpose of the early organic management of Wikipedia (which created "Ignore All Rules") was to avoid bureaucratic entanglements such as getting dozens or hundreds of editors together to change the rules. Alas, there is no balance between the "organic" and "bureaucratic" philosophies on Wikipedia. Another reason the site suffers so.