Sun 4th December 2011, 11:27pm
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 4th December 2011, 11:07pm)
Can you explain to me how the policy of 'anyone can edit' is consistent with this not being a problem for Wikipedia? In my world you go through an intense selection process in which the ability to do certain things, and the ability to work with others to achieve those things collaboratively are key parts of the process. In my world also you have an editor in chief whose job it is to make judgments about the overall structure and balance of the work. This process actually works, in my experience.
Nor do we tend to have an office that anyone can wander into and write stuff on whatever they feel like, and delete the work of others or arrogantly pontificate on matters that they understand nothing about. We do not blame poor results on 'certain editors', or if we do, the editors do not stay very long.
It is only a problem in the same way that the fact that while in theory in a democracy everyone can become President, but in reality not everyone does is a problem for democratic countries. I.e. it is a problem that is inherent in the difference between the actual world and the ideal world.
Your own problem seems to be more with the slogan "everyone can edit" - it seems you feel it should be more restricted, and the slogan should be changed to "the encyclopedia that you can edit if we let you". This is basically sensible, except that doesn't change the fact that everyone can
edit the wikipedia - as long as wikipedia lets them. That is basically the way it works now - your version would just be more restricted so that people start out being blocked or topic banned and have to earn their right to edit - instead of as it is now they have the right untill they loose it.
Others see the walledgardens and article owners as the problem - and want to keep the slogan and make wikipedia conform to the slogan - that there should be no restrictions on editing and that noone should be allowed to revert anyone's edit or remove anyone's information. That is pretty much also the way it works now since every ridiculous act of vandalism or malinformed stupidity is kept in the article history. I really don't see why the "everyone can edit" is the problem.
The problem is that we don't get good articles because too few people are restricted form editing, and generally they are restricted too late.