Repute: Difference between revisions
ack inevitability of ad hominem approval when dealing only with volunteer labour - it may be possible to escape it with a determined or closely aligned group
(Ad hominem approval is often required to be accepted as a de facto practice in running large public wikis...) |
(ack inevitability of ad hominem approval when dealing only with volunteer labour - it may be possible to escape it with a determined or closely aligned group) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
'''Ad hominem approval''' and [[permission-based model]]s are poor [[wiki management]] practice where edits by "trusted users of good '''reputation'''" go unexamined and thus might contain all kinds of errors. | '''Ad hominem approval''' and [[permission-based model]]s are poor [[wiki management]] practice where edits by "trusted users of good '''reputation'''" go unexamined and thus might contain all kinds of errors. | ||
:Ad hominem approval is often required to be accepted as a de facto practice in running [[large public wiki]]s. Because to keep a ''certain level'' of ''integrity'' withing the [[GFDL text corpus]] information coming in from previously unknown sources or authors must in practice be screened more carefully and systematically. | :Ad hominem approval is often required to be accepted as a de facto practice in running [[large public wiki]]s. Because to keep a ''certain level'' of ''integrity'' withing the [[GFDL text corpus]] information coming in from previously unknown sources or authors must in practice be screened more carefully and systematically. This carries risks of [[systematic bias]] (process) or [[systemic bias]] (group affinity problems) but seems to be inevitable when only volunteer labour is relied on. There is never enough. It is not clear that a truly efficient pipeline to treat all contributions equally is possible. In [[political party]] circles this is also a major problem. | ||
Edits by new or untrusted users (see [[New Troll point of view]]) are often attacked without reason or for ideological reasons. Please note that this assumes that there can be such a thing as positive repute, and that the new user necessarily lacks it, regardless of prior achievements anywhere else, or any credentials or skills. | |||
:See also [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] which assume that repute is ''both'' positive and negative - these poor practices generate [[sysop vandalism]] and aren't [[troll-friendly]] as they assume that "[[trolls]] are bad" (always) while "[[sysop]]s are good" (always). ''Ask [[Wikimedia]] "can a sysop be a vandal?" and watch their tiny brains fry.'' | :See also [[ad hominem delete]] and [[ad hominem revert]] which assume that repute is ''both'' positive and negative - these poor practices generate [[sysop vandalism]] and aren't [[troll-friendly]] as they assume that "[[trolls]] are bad" (always) while "[[sysop]]s are good" (always). ''Ask [[Wikimedia]] "can a sysop be a vandal?" and watch their tiny brains fry.'' | ||