<<In a message dated 4/2/2009 5:18:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes: Will, look at the example I provided earlier in this thread. Established editors and admins were blindly reverting vandalism and leaving an article in a state of previous vandalism. How do you begin to address that problem?>> You don't address it by allowing any admin who got their badge knowing next to nothing about NOR (as many don't) do remove the right of established users who have been in-project ten times longer than they. I will never, not ever, agree to giving admins extra powers. They already have several powers they should not have in my opinion. The idea behind admins, imho, was supposed to be that they are helpful janitors clearning up messes, not theat they were thought police enforcing the boundary line with clubs. If we want to create new powers, then we need perhaps new categories of user. For those users who do not want to be police, but are quite willing to enhance the content of the project, we should create a parallel track, not a subordinate one. No matter what anyone states, if a reviewer's right can be removed at the whim (yes whim) of any admin, then reviewers are subordinate to admins. They should not be. Will Johnson **************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

There are few active people here who have not made that mistake, at least once or twice; the only way to have no errors is to have no encyclopedia. What we are out to do is produce the most accurate encyclopedia that can be produced by our methods--and it is already much more accurate than anyone would have suspected beforehand, knowing the chaotic way in which it was to be edited. Some people join because they see errors and want to correct them; others join because they see surprisingly good things and want to add to them-- that was my personal reason. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

Personally I could agree that the power to "remove reviewer right" could be restricted to some special class of user, but only if the power to "grant reviewer right" is subject to even more scrutiny. If reviewer right is wrongly removed - we'll have the internal problem of an upset editor (big deal? not - get over it!), however if it is granted to someone who misuses it then it breaches our quality control and can damage living people.

I really have little sympathy for those more concerned about internal power structures or egalitarian principles in wikiland, that how what we do impacts on the reader, and more importantly the bio subject who is the victim of our structural carelessness.