G'day Molu,
Wikipedia is not a democracy, we need supermajority
instead of
majority to change status quo (though whether this is the best way to
go is another question, but that's the way things currently are and
not likely to change anytime soon), and if we did have the
Umm, *no*. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that means *fD don't
operate on supermajorities any more than they operate on majorities.
You get 67% support for deletion on an AfD with all deletes saying "nn
d" and the remaining 33% saying "keep, verifiable, notable, editorially
appropriate, and the article's currently featured by /The Guardian/ as
an example of why Wikipedia is awesome" ... and then ask a sensible
admin to close it. Guess what? It ain't gonna be a delete, baby.
supermajority against an image it would be
automatically deleted by
the IfD system without need for unilateral actions.
IfD discussions (if there *is* any discussion) are interpreted by a
closing *admin*. It's not automatic at all. Like it or not, a lot of
functions on Wikipedia are carried out by admins. If your problem is
with the concept of admins in general, then you're living in a paranoid
fantasy. If, however, there are particular admins who cannot be trusted
by the community to carry out normal admin functions, then those people
should not be admins.
Unfortunately, these days when people talk about "the trust of the
community", the community they usually refer to is not Wikipedia at all,
but rather the fools at WR. The trolls are a community unto themselves,
and people are actually paying attention to them!
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 10/04/2006