User blog comment:ForestFairy/How to Take the Fun Out of Trolling/@comment-70.198.139.60-20150717182605/@comment-29313037-20150719044204

If you re-read what I stated, you will see that I never said that you said that - I was contradicting your allegation that false positives are merely a rare occurrence.

As for a middle-ground, that is a bit of a logical fallacy (see: argumentum ad temperantiam). No one will understand any given situation 100%, and that includes the people personally involved. That is, until we evolve to a point where we can emphasize with every possible perspective. So it is not really an excuse to let things happen, just because someone is afraid that they will be too ignorant and/or impartial in-order to handle a given situation.

So what is, in theory, supposed to be impartiality, ends up being the allowance of inevitable savagery. If you look at wikis such as the Elder Scrolls wiki, or Halo Nation, you will see points in their history, which includes our present, in which their infighting and corruption had or has destabilized their wikis after enough time passed.

Even when the dust eventually settles, the vitriol and bitterness remains, and negatively affects the wikis for both the editors, and the readers. And to be perfectly frank, it never needs to get to this point - sometimes it takes something as extreme as the purging system that I mentioned earlier, and starting anew before any permanent damage has been done.

Then again, maybe independent wikis are considered social experiments. Who knows. But the current arguments used to stay out of wiki-affairs, can border on the ridiculous at times. Especially when I have personally seen Wikia Staff ignore situations that break Wikia's own ToU/A.

As much as I have come to respect Sannse, she provided a perfect example in the past, in which she stated that a wiki can very well decide to ban every user that has the letter 'n' in their user-name. With an example like that given, it becomes clear that their impartiality is not necessarily born from the inability to stabilize wikis under their name - but alludes to an outright doctrine of sanctioned anarchy/bigotry/elitism. Maybe not publicly, or even in theory... but in practice.

It really comes down to accountability - a wiki might as well and be a child, and depending on how that child matures, there will be certain aspects of its growth that are the full responsibility of its parent(s).