On 4/19/06, maru dubshinki
<marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Don't get fixated on the admin power abuse
thing. It is merely a
convenient method and sign of who they have on their side. They could
do it just as easily through database dumps, or spidering CFD/AFD, or
scaping mirrors, or... You see what I'm getting at? Frankly, the CC
GFDL issue aside, I find it kinda amusing we're all so horrified at
seeing some of our content (for better or worse) on other websites.
They're the one hosting it; no moral blame descends on us for at one
time making a mistake, rectifying it, and then keeping records in case
our rectification was a mistake. But I think I've posted enough in
this thread, so good night.
It's not the fact that they've obtained the deleted material per se.
As you point out, they could have gotten it by other means; and the
material itself, in this case, isn't particularly impressive.
My concern is more to the "sign of who they have on their side"
aspect. The Wikipedia admin model works to a great extent because
admins can be trusted not to harm the project. Here we have evidence
-- circumstantial and not very specific, but nevertheless quite
damning -- that one or more admins _are_ clearly attempting to harm
Wikipedia. I would argue that this is a bad thing regardless of
whether they've actually damaged anything yet.
The most disturbing aspect of this view is the classic paranoia. Of
course we are in no position to go so far as to put a bullet in
somebody's head for disloyalty, but the underlying aura of suspicion is
similar. The fear that the people you might be working with are not as
loyal as you, that they do not worship the words of the great leader as
much as you are very scary. In a totalitarian regime there is no need
for the leadership to issue repressive orders, or to hire high-price
hitmen. A few handshakes, a smile or a bit of casual praise to a
roomful of sycophants and paranoids will be far more cost effective.
As long as these rogue admins are taking ludicrous positions can they
really harm Wikipedia with their rants? And how do we distinguish
between the kooks and the honest whistleblowers who are exposing
legitimate problems?