But that is an exceptional case, when Jimbo hands out a decree from the top against
community consensus, and it doesn't happen very often. It can't be taken as the
general situation. In general, what is good for the Wikipedia is determined by the
community and not some omnipotent being with an absolute and unquestionable benchmark of
appropriateness. We ARE here to build an encyclopedia, but since it is WIKIpedia and not
Nupedia, there can be no encyclopedia without the community. The community builds the
encyclopedia. Except for certain special authorities like Jimbo, it is the community that
must decide whether an admin's actions are in the best interests of the encyclopedia,
we shouldn't take the admin's words for it.
Look at it this way, we rely upon the community to decide who will work best for the
encyclopedia in the first place. What miracle suddenly happens after the RfA concludes
that the very admins who were chosen by the community get the power to disregard the
community? It's like "Now you know you made a mistake and there's not a damn
thing you can do about it. I AM THE TYRANT MUHUHAHAHA!!!"
And for the trolls complaining about corrupt ArbCom, ofcourse they whine about it
because the ArbCom tends to rule against trolls. But if we have an avenue of removing
those invalid criticisms without any negative effects, and have as an additional benefit
the direct accountability of the admins to the community without going through the
indirect and unnecessarily resource consuming process of ArbCom or even worse, Jimbo
himself.
Molu
On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:04:00 +0100 Nick Boalch wrote:
This is simply not the case. If an admin is acting in
the interests of
the encyclopaedia then he is doing the right thing, regardless of what
the majority of the community thinks.
We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a
community. Usually the
interests of the encyclopaedia and those of the community go hand in
hand. Where they don't, the encyclopaedia comes first. Always and
without exception.
[[:m:Instruction creep]]. Such a mechanism would be
totally unnecessary.
Trolls complain about ArbCom being 'corrupt'
because, rightly if they're
trolls, they don't get the results they want from it.
Cheers,
N.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com