On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse
<supermo0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator
<cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the
citadel. Being an
admin really ain't that amazing.
Except for the simple fact that they can
delete images, which cannot be
restored. All it takes is one bad apple to completely destroy
Wikipedia's
images, unless they're stopped in time.
That's true now, isn't it?
And we all know how hard it is to remove an admin
once he's there.
That's because becoming an admin isn't automatic.
You're completely avoiding both my points. If you give everyone a gun, all
it takes is one person to fire a shot for the whole town to erupt in a blaze
of gunfire. If you give trustworthy people, a small portion of them, guns,
then those people become a symbol of trust and honesty to everyone else.
Obviously guns are a bit of an extreme comparison...
I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an
extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of
holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty
entertaining, though.
[Not to get into it, but: I'm not a huge fan of a small portion of
"trustworthy" people wielding guns. Somehow a lot of people seem to
get killed by guns in the US nonetheless.]
Also, by using circular logic on the second point,
you're ignoring the fact
that it seems to be generally thought that the current de-adminship process,
which relies on admins not coming in hundreds at a time, is already broken,
and you want to flood it even further. You're saying that by adding more
people to be looked over, the already bogged-down system will magically fix
itself?
No, I'm saying that the current system sucks, and that it should be
replaced by an "easily given, easily taken away" philosophy.