= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Blocking users - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (13)
Is there anything wrong with adopting a standard like 'if it would get you banned on Wikipedia, it gets you banned here'?
Wikipedia has a lot of policies we wouldn't like. Neutral point of view would be the most obvious of them.
Do we even need to explicitly adopt such a standard at this point?
Wikipedia has its problems. I wouldn't be too eager to ape it in any detail.
Apparently we do given the existence of this Discussion post. Wikipedia's problems do not stem from its blocking policies but from subtler issues.
Wikipedia's problems stem from a variety of issues, including seriously haphazard ways of determining what results in banning for anything other than absolutely cut and dried stuff. Wikipedia has a lot of different problems. The project succeeds primarily because the problems exist around the edge cases and the vast majority of editing never runs into them.
Didn't mean to imply that Wikipedia's blocking policies constitute a problem. Just that all we need here is the standard 'accounts that post spam will be blocked'. Which seems utterly uncontroversial, and doesn't even need to be made explicit.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.