Wikipedia:Equality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Equality That's a lot of discussion in just 16 hours. Nobody will ever agree about anything. The forest fire continues to burn.

This is the orthodox ideology Wikipedia always put forward. The "flat hierarchy". It usually took a new user a couple of months or so of fairly regular editing to be disabused of the notion -- that is, it took until they encountered some connected gamers and/or dishonest admins in some content dispute they innocently wandered into.

This isn't counting the countless new users wrongly banned for vandalism, or had their first article tagged for speedy deletion while they were building it or etc etc, for whom the lesson was quicker.

But the ideology has been undermined more and more openly in recent years; 'twas perhaps most clear in cases where admins talked about stuff concerning admins, in which case "the community" often became meant to signify "the admin community". I'm thinking particularly of recall discussions and things like that.

Now they must hash it all out again, and the results will be chit-chat and not much else, I expect.

wait.... isn't this the same guy who proposed than all ip editors be banned from all arbitration pages? Doesn't sound too "equal" to me.

It's not necessary to allow everyone to edit every page. Whoever you do allow, you should treat equally.

Finally someone has taken matters in hand and written an essay.

OMG ESSAY!!!

The nuclear weapon of literary criticism!!!!

Hear hear ... in short, fucked over by an idiot.

Newcomers, Pee-dians outside of the power-set, anyone with some ethical concerns or anyone above gaming and conniving are;

equally disadvantaged
equally disrespected
equally time wasted
equally abused

and so, yes, we are all equal.

Of course "equality" is a myth, unless it is an 'equal opportunity' to become a shit by adopt the same strategies as other shits on the Pee-dia.

What does it mean!?! It is only a wishful appearance designed to attract new cult members.

Even that - without a proper editorial team and direction and professional standards - still does not protect users, or the project, from the 'unaccountable above' being plain stupid, dishonest, uninformed about what they throw their weight about on or blind to their cultural bias.

hmm

so are all wp'ers equal???

All Wikipedians are equal, but some are more equal than others - Ashlin, 7 May 2006.

Why, of course, Comrade Emesee.

Now, I will block you and fully protect your talk page for Assuming Bad Faith. Durova, Georgewilliamherbert, Elonka, Ryanpostlethwaite, Killerchihuahua and William Connolley will appear on your talk page and order you to repent before the whole community with promises wrested from you that make you engage in undignified acts of regret and sorrow for having suggested that we Wikipedians are not equal. Those that are displeased with your block will be severely punished for Assuming Bad Faith and they will blocked for long periods of time if they persist, particularly if our dear leader Jimbo Wales sees them has having "toxic personalities."

Jimbo will then say that we are a happy and loving community. The fortuitous arrival of pink unicorns, rainbows, and Riverdance dancers will herald the glory of our Dear Leader and he shall forgive you and other repentant ones for your Bad Faith. If you should stray from the path again, however, you shall be banished.

Of course, we are all equal.

And God hopes, the Riverdance dancers with you.

Unfortunately, they are likely to be dancing on my skull!



The problem is that people have different views on policies such as "civility" and "personal attacks." There also comes a time that "Assuming Good Faith" simply fails and calling someone out is required (see WP:SPADE). Consensus can fail miserably, especially on questions of morality.

Usually, I take the populist view around this forum, and I believe that the "people" should decide how the project should be run. But I recognize that sometimes the "people" can be wrong. Alexander Hamilton once said that "Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast!" when Thomas Jefferson advocated a populist view. Hamilton is right. There has to be someone with authority and the will to sometimes do things that are very unpopular in order to do what is necessary for the greater good. Wikipedia, though, is terrible about finding a balance between a "populist" and Hamiltonian form of governance. Particularly when it comes to administrators and higher ups disagreeing with each other.

The policies and governance model (there really isn't one) of Wikipedia is so screwed up that asking everyone to adhere to all policies is going to be very confusing as everyone is going say that he/she is obeying the policies while others are not.

Most importantly, there are people on Wikipedia I do not respect and I will never respect. They are immoral and I could care less about their opinions. I would oppose them in every way possible, policy be damned. You can't talk about equality until you have a basic culture of respect in place. Wikipedia does not have that. There will be no equality of any kind on Wikipedia.

Did I make a point here? A good point?