This page is a translated version of the page Wikibureaucracy and the translation is 33% complete.
Közösség
Wikiellenesség
Konfliktusvezérelt nézőpont
Álközösség
Wikikultúra
Wikihit
A Wiki-folyamat
The wiki way
Darwikinizmus
Hierarchia
Wikianarchizmus
Wikibürokrácia
Wikidemokratizmus
WikiDemokrácia
Wikidespotizmus
Wikifederalizmus
Wikihierarchizmus
Wikimeritrokrácia
Wikinvidualizmus
Wikioligarchizmus
Wikiplutokrácia
Wikiköztársaság
Wikiszkepticizmus
Wikitechnokrácia
Együttműködés
Anti-frakcionizmus
Frakcionizmus
Közösség
Exopédizmus
Mezopédizmus
Metapédizmus
Átfogó tartalom-struktúra
Transclusionism
Antitransclusionism
Kategorizmus
Strukturizmus
Enciklopédiai szabványok
Törlés
Tévedés
Kihagyás
Befoglalás
Precízió
Precision-Skeptics
Nevezetesség
Esszencionizmus
Inkremencionizmus
Szócikk-hossz
Összevonás
Szeparatizmus
Pontosság mérése
Eseményizmus
Azonnalizmus
Egyéb
Wikiköziátirányítás-ellenesség
Mediawikizmus
Utó-törlés
Transzwikizmus
Wikidinamizmus
Wikiszecesszionizmus
Átirányítási kényszer

Wikibureaucracy advocates Wikipedia running as a bureaucracy with power and authority being vested in precedent and policy. Wikibureaucracy is directly opposed to the ignore all rules meta-policy which allows users to disregard rules that they believe are harmful to the interests of the encyclopedia.

Előnyei

The upside is that, if sysops and other users are only allowed to take actions allowed by rules, then there is consistency, people know what to expect, and the potential for abuse is limited to what the rules allow. If bad outcomes occur, it is because of abuse or incompetence on the part of the rulemakers or those who violate the rules, not on the part of those who follow the rules.

Hátrányai

The downside is that the rules cannot anticipate every possible situation, including situations that arise because of changing circumstances such as new technology, unexpected user behavior, and so on. Most notably, a set of rules restrictive enough to stop abuse can also often be so restrictive as to hinder progress. Progress tends to be a beneficial change whose potential was not anticipated when the rules were drafted; therefore, no allowance was made to permit the necessary actions to implement the desired change. It takes time and effort to revise the rules; in the meantime, progress is held up.

The people who make the rules, whether they are WMF leadership or users contributing to a consensus decision, are not all-knowing. They can only take into account a limited amount of information. The individual user or sysop may possess information that was unavailable to those rulemakers, but if his hands are tied by the rules, he cannot usefully apply that knowledge, except to argue that the rule should be changed. This is typically a difficult process, and many people despair of attempting it.

Even clear rules typically lend themselves to abuse. As Ludwig von Mises writes, "every lawyer knows only too well that even the best law can be perverted, in concrete cases, in interpretation, application, and administration." When the rules are vague, the situation is even worse because "the door is left wide open for arbitrariness, bias, and the abuse of official power."[1]

Jegyzetek

  1. Mises, Ludwig von (1929). "The Political Foundations of Peace". Liberalism.