User:Hemlock Martinis/FR

We need to adapt
We call the sum total of these pages we spend so much time crafting an "encyclopedia". It's important to remember this from time to time since we occasionally seem to forget. Because the English language is just that awesome, certain words have certain meanings and impressions that correspond with them. These meanings are not universal; the word "Obama" represents sunshine and puppies to some and hellfire and brimstone to others. "Encyclopedia" does have a more universal meaning, however. It conjures images of learning and knowledge, of erudition and comprehensiveness, of indisputable truth and of unimaginable effort. Thus, when we affix the term "encyclopedia" to our little project, we imbue this project with a sense of purpose and meaning, giving it a rudder and a place towards which to steer. With the reader, the hapless passerby to this website, we form a sort of social contract. The reader shares our meaning of "encyclopedia". The reader understands what he or she should expect from these articles: facts, knowledge and the name of that guy from that one movie. When we do not present facts, when we dilute one's pool of knowledge with lies and half-truths. When we allow a more malicious passerby to spray graffiti upon our pages, we fail in our duty. We break our contract. The Ted Kennedy case represents a perfect example as to why we need to adapt our Wiki model for an editing environment that has changed due to both external and internal pressures and influences. I had been off-Wiki for the last few weeks, during one of my regular editing lulls, when I stumbled upon this article on MSNBC. The article vilifies us as a community (and rightly so) for failing our fundamental duty to provide an free encyclopedia to the world. It also demonstrates that vandalism, no matter how "brief" it may remain up, can still be seen by thousands of people. Here's an example: on the day Tim Russert died, 433,000 people visited his article. If someone had inserted vandalism or false material into the article in that time period and it lasted only one minute, it would still be seen by roughly 300 people. That's 300 individuals whose confidence and trust we just lost. Barack Obama's page garnered 2.3 million hits on Election Night. Assuming here that our crack team of administrators is more vigilant than usual and vandalism is only staying up for roughly 30 seconds, it would still be seen by almost 800 people. If you think those numbers seem relatively small, keep in mind that these pages are often vandalized in high-viewing situations dozens or even hundreds of times before the community finally agrees to semi-protection. Another recurring theme I've seen in this debate is BLP concerns. While I am by no mean arguing that those are not problematic, I'm saying those are irrelevant in this case. As I mentioned in my introduction, we have a solemn responsibility to provide the best information possible for our readers. If we do not take every step we can towards carrying out this duty, if we do not implement every tool or maintain every safeguard in this encyclopedia's defense, then we fail. This is not a failure of BLP enforcement, this is a failure of Wikipedia's policies and by extension, a failure of us as a community. Another frequent criticism of Flagged Revisions is that it interferes with the "anyone can edit" philosophy. How is this criticism flawed? Let me count the ways. I'm fairly sure Ted Kennedy won't sue us for prematurely announcing his death and didn't suffer any damage to his image or reputation because we flubbed and jumped the gun. Our image as a reliable presenter of information, on the other hand, is greatly affected.
 * 1) First, FR doesn't take away a single person's ability to edit unless you adhere to the most extreme possible definition of editing, which I don't. For me, editing is defined as making a substantiative contribution to the encyclopedia proper through the addition of good information, the proofreading of extant information or the removal of bad information, or otherwise making material enhancements in related areas such as but not limited to categorization and image uploading, for the purpose of furthering Wikipedia's mission of providing free content to everyone everywhere. And yes, I just made that up on the spot. FR does not infringe upon that ability.
 * 2) But let's explore the "anyone can edit" concept further. I derive this phrase, of course, from the heading banner at the Main Page reading "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." While I used to assume that the "...that anyone can edit" phrase was a statement, a mere remark upon an unusual happenstance or quirk of the project's nature similar to saying "Welcome to my house, my family's beautiful residence that has a Frisbee on the roof", I have since been informed that it is actually a solemn and inviolate right bestowed upon all without discrimination or prior judgment. To many editors, the right to edit is as important and fundamental to the community as the right to free speech or the right to bear arms are in the United States.
 * 3) These individuals would do well to remember that the Supreme Court of the United States has placed limits that were reasonable and common sense on those sacred rights. For example, the right to free speech does not grant one the freedom to slander and libel, nor does it allow copyright infringement, nor (perhaps most importantly) speech that represents a clear and present danger to lives or property. (Be sure to click the blue links for a fun surprise!) The right to bear arms is similarly held in high regard, but the courts have also upheld similar restrictions preventing felons from purchasing firearms, instituting waiting periods on gun purchases and banning certain types of assault weapons. These are common sense restrictions. So is FR.
 * 4) To me, "anyone can edit" means that everyone with Internet access and a computer is given the opportunity to edit Wikipedia. The theoretical opportunity, however, is distinct from the practical ability. In practice, not everyone can edit Wikipedia because of a variety of reasons. We block TOR nodes, which apparently is the primary method for those behind the Great Firewall of China to edit Wikipedia. We block those who habitually violate our policies, practices and community and social norms.