32 votes

Latest message from Jimmy Wales to the over three hundred thousand people using WT:Social

Posted by Jimmy Wales:

If you see something here - or anywhere - that is useless or in the wrong place, the fastest and easiest thing to do is click 'edit' and remove it.

It's perfectly fine to even blank something if it's in the wrong place or is spam.

Sometimes, things only need a little tweaking - removing some bias, fixing a misstatement, etc.

But sometimes the best thing to do is just... delete it.

A notable response from Georgi Stankov:

But what happens if a detractor by purpose deletes the entry of another user? For example, for political reasons. How a user could appeal the deleted post? Who will arbitrate?

Jimmy Wales' response:

Geogi - in the wiki world everything is transparent. Someone who does that will quickly be banned. People are quite reasonable as it turns out - the failed philosophy of non-collaborative social media has made it hard to see this fact: most people are basically pretty nice. And yes, we can't be naive and assume everyone is acting in good faith, hence the reason some people get banned.

3 comments

  1. determinism
    Link
    That's interesting. Collaborate social media. I had a similar thought that I posted on Aether a while back about marrying open moderation with liquid/delegative democracy. It wouldn't be possible...

    That's interesting. Collaborate social media. I had a similar thought that I posted on Aether a while back about marrying open moderation with liquid/delegative democracy. It wouldn't be possible on a platform like that one because of the additional traffic required in order to establish consensus.

    The basic idea was that all users could take moderation actions: deleting comments, banning users, tagging or categorizing posts. Applying these changes would open the moderation action up for vote which all users could weigh in on. By default, the person who initiated the moderation action would vote for it but they could change their vote if they were so inclined. The logistics of how many users have to vote in order for the action to be applied, what kind of time constraint should apply, how the pending moderation actions are presented to the users is all important but haven't been considered.

    Users can also distribute their voting power, as in liquid democracy, to any number of delegates and change that delegative distribution on a case-by-case basis (effectively just change their vote). If they've delegated voting power to users A,B, and C evenly, each getting an additional 0.333... votes, and each voting to ban user D, they can view that moderation decision and override the application of their vote in that instance. Voting power on future mod actions would still be distributed to A,B, and C as described so long as the user hasn't changed their default delegation settings.

    8 votes
  2. [2]
    skybrian
    Link
    Do they follow Wikipedia rules in other respects? Do posts have named authors or editors, or is it anonymous worker bees other than the history page?

    Do they follow Wikipedia rules in other respects? Do posts have named authors or editors, or is it anonymous worker bees other than the history page?

    1. suspended
      Link Parent
      I don't believe so. Named editors.

      Do they follow Wikipedia rules in other respects?

      I don't believe so.

      Do posts have named authors or editors, or is it anonymous worker bees other than the history page?

      Named editors.

      1 vote