You have flawed notion that admins don't vandalize or edit war, and
that anons and layusers don't step in and correct such abuses.
Sometimes they get popular by sharing the same socio-political
paradigm. Sometimes they get that way by being boring, and not having
been involved in conflict. MOST often they get that way the same way
people get popular in school, by chatting alot, and making friends.
Which of these shows their inherent abilities as adjudicators?
As to this last, I suppose your trolling? Suggestions like that
underscore why an clique of net-friends should not have a monopoly on
the reigns of power here.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Jack Lynch wrote:
I'd been hoping for a long time that the
position of adminship would
be done away with, in favor of something more wikilike. This entire
thread betrays the basics of why the wikipedia works (anti-elitism,
ability of everyone to edit). These proposals perpetuate the idea that
admins are somehow more competent for having won a popularity contest
at RfA. That simply is not true, and eventually you'll discover the
reason why the wikipedia works, and the nupedia didn't. Creating
hegemony to the benefit of the few is no way to encourage
volunteership. Skilled contributors don't donate their time in order
to be made to feel like 2nd class citizens. Your damn lucky I enjoy
reading the encyclopedia so much, or I wouldn't be wasting time w such
an unrewarding process.
Oh, so you would rather that we let everyone vandalise and edit war
without restraint?
If RfA is a popularity contest, how did the people that "won" get so
popular in the first place?
And while we're at it, are you in the habit of conducting "experiments"
to press admins's buttons, to see just how much crap they are willing to
tolerate?
- --
Alphax | /"\