According to the article, because we accept that:
- we "cannot completely separate technical and social issues."
- I am still trying to wrap my brain around this (some might
consider that we do ... posting versus the CB)
- "members are different than users."
- We have a set of core users that truly care about this
site. User of all sorts come and go, but we have enough
core users (and plenty of those who want to be) to hopefully
ensure the integrity of our community.
- "the core group has rights that trump individual rights
in some situations."
- We have editors, gods, and power users that work to
make sure that our community maintains it's integrity.
and because the site was designed to (or at least modified to):
- have "handles the user can invest in."
- And not only do we provide identity, we still allow
- have "members in good standing."
- Best Nodes, Monks by Writeup Count, and Saints in our Book are some of the
ways that we reward these members.
- have "barriers to participation."
- Anyone can post, but only those attain Novice
are allowed to vote. Also, only registered users can vote
at the polls, send private /msg's, and use the CB.
- "spare the group from scale."
- I think this means that we can prevent a hoard of people
joining our community because 1) we limit the discussions
to mostly Perl and 2) our level system weeds out flakey
All in all, this was a really good read. Thanks for pointing it out dws
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)