LimitsOfSoftSecurity

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories

Dealing with RA taught me to be pragmatic. The very thing he was seeking was public unraveling. So the most effective way to deal with him was to silently delete his content from AndStuffWiki, and silently ban him. No public discussion, no public announcement; he simply vanished. To my surprise, dealing with RA in this way helped me to sympathize with RD's handling of VK.

SoftSecurity and complete openness is a cool ideal. And for some groups an architected and open process is really important, although open here doesn't mean permissive. But horses for courses. For the administrators of a SourceForge project's wiki, trolls shouldn't be treated to a negotiation; just ban them. The administrators can confer with each other after the fact if they feel the wrong decision was made. This is how many mailing lists work; whichever administrator gets to the unapproved posts first gets to make the decision. Unless you're purposely experimenting with online democratic mob rule, there's nothing stigmatic about a "cabal".

When I was eleven, I remember a Wednesday night church meeting. Suddenly it started pouring buckets outside, and in tromped a bedraggled skateboarder dude who started swearing at some kids in the hallway. A deacon literally threw him out of the door and locked it. No one questioned the deacon's actions (though some questioned his choice of words). There was no deliberation or hand-wringing over what to do, no negotiation over the skateboarder's intentions. Likewise, in the civic arena, it's possible to get yourself thrown out of the town hall or the library; in most cases this too occurs without any public deliberation.

Good or bad, most wikis are wide open for editing. Depending on who is passing by, this can result in happy coincidences or annoying problems. For most wikis, administrators should feel comfortable dealing with problems in the simplest and easiest ways possible. If proprietors don't have the time or inclination to do this, they can employ "bouncers" or "butlers" (this reminds us that having the power to ban is a burden as well as a privilege). I can't recall offhand, but I think Pete might have even alluded to some of this way back with his Wiki:StoneSociety. At least, SS allows for assigning these sorts of roles in fulfilment of an obligation.

Proprietors who are concerned about abuse can establish private means of accountability for those who hold power. In the case of the skateboarder, I'm sure that the church leadership discussed the incident among themselves and with concerned parents after the fact.

I'm not arguing against SoftSecurity. I'm just saying that, unless a wiki is a deliberate experiment or artwork, we shouldn't be afraid to take off our white gloves when the situation calls for it. Given humility and some sort of accountability, banning someone doesn't necessarily consign any part of our souls to the "dark side".

Perhaps Meatball should be evangelizing humility rather than SoftSecurity. I think the success of a community is more bound up with how humble, generous, and servant-hearted its leaders and members are than with how closely it adheres to democratic process. I'd rather be part of a church ruled by wise and humble pastors and filled with humble members who are eager to serve (I am grateful to be part of such a church now) than a congregational church (essentially democratic) filled with selfish or egotistical cynics. (I have other reasons for avoiding congregational government, but those aren't germane to this discussion.) Democracy and openness cannot make up for a lack of kindness and compassion; they can only limit the damage if leadership lacks kindness and compassion. This is good for society, but isn't relevant to most wikis out there.

For a more formal organization some sort of process is obviously important. But at that point there must be clear notions of "membership", and so a fully open wiki is not a good match for such an organization. A private wiki might be used for internal deliberation, and a supervised wiki for public interaction. But here once again pragmatic oversight seems best.

I didn't write this with regard to any particular situation. But writing it makes me think of WikiWiki. Do I think Ward should employ caretakers? I'm not sure. I think it would be interesting if Ward turned C2 into a sort of MathWorld for programming patterns. And I won't even comment on WikiPedia. :) -- anon.

CategorySoftSecurity

LimitsOfSoftSecurity

Discussion