On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific
Standard Time,
valdelli(a)gmail.com writes:
The final solution is that only people who are
already expert in the
processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia
don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of expert
users.>>
Exactly the same point I've made a few times. Those who are expert in the
use of the game rules, impose their view on those who are not expert.
Which is why I've suggested the establishment of a group of advocates for
the editor versus the administrators who are viewed as policemen. In a real
society, the only classifications are not "public" and "police". We
also
have checks and balances against the power of the police to force compliance.
In Wikipedia we do not have those checks and balances.
You assume that administrators are a monolithic and confrontational
lot, neither of which is necessarily true, though both do happen at
times.
We have the Mediators, arbcom, and experienced non-admin editors
around too. Anyone who thinks admins can run roughshod over users
should watch ANI for a while. We aren't great about self-policing -
but we do it.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com