On 5/31/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
>
> Slim Virgin wrote:
> > Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing
> > links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of
> > systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just
> > removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy.
> > *That's how policy develops, by admins doing things.* It just wasn't
> > written down anywhere.
> >
>
> I think that's generally how policy develops. But I think this policy is
> fundamentally different, because it makes itself nearly invisible. How
> can the rest of us fairly judge or properly adopt an unwritten policy
> that we can't see the effects of?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
Wow, being an admin is even more of a big deal than I thought. For some
lame reason I though ordinary peons, er editors, had some say in policy. I
stand corrected. (Not really, I didn't think editors had any say in policy
unless and until they became admins, but it's nice to have it so obviously
pointed out now and then when anyone who says that being an admin is a big
deal just gets slammed.)
KP