Ruy Lopez wrote:
1) Jimbo, who said he sees Wikipedia as a "von
Mises model", appoints like-minded people to
ArbCom such as Fred Bauder and JayJG. Jimbo appoints conservative cronies like that,
making
a far worse choice than the ArbCom elections, which in my view elected some good, decent
people
like Raul654, who I don't always agree with, but at least is neutral, fair and so
forth.
ArbCom members will recall that I initially objected to JayJG out of a
concern that if his politics (about which I know nothing, by the way,
other than that he has sometimes been characterized as a supporter of
Israel) are viewed as similar to mine, some trolls might suggest that
I'm trying to stack the ArbCom politically. David Gerard, who describes
himself as a "Guardian reading socialist" quickly jumped to JayJG's
defense, and I relented on this point on the view that JayJG would make
an excellent arbiter. And, to my knowledge, that has been fully borne
out by the facts.
I wonder when I ever said Wikipedia was a "von Mises" model. That'd be
a pretty strange thing for me to say. I have pointed to Hayek's "On the
Use of Knowledge in Society" as a pivotal essay in guiding my own
thinking on topics like decentralization, knowledge, and society. But
that's a far cry from what you are suggesting.
2) So Fred Bauder, Jimbo-appointed conservative cronie
from way back "does" the case, and most of
the other arbs just sign off on the work he did. I've seen this movie before.
3) Getting onto ArbCom went from Jimbo appointments (who like JayJG and Bauder are
horrible), to
an election, which brought in good arbs, and now he wants to go back to appointing people
again.
That's not true at all. There seems to be considerable support for a
hybrid model. Perhaps you haven't kept up with the poll and discussion.
Of course he can't just kill the election once
it's in place, so he says he will have an election
to help him decide or some garbage like that. I mean it's nonsense. Despite the
"be bold" mantra,
I am usually not so bold on such things, but I moved the "ArbCom 2005
elections" page to something
like "Arbcom 2005 support vote" and noted that there would be no elections. Of
course I was
immediately reverted, and my notes on how the election is a fraud were removed.
That's not surprising, since the accusation is rather absurd.
Wouldn't it be a good
thing for all the "left wing cranks" to go off and edit some other wiki
encyclopedia?
Be sure to take all the "right wing cranks" and indeed, all the other
cranks with you. :-) Then we'll be left with the kind of thoughtful
and reasonable people who understand that a broad centrist open approach
is the right way for an encyclopedia to be written.
--Jimbo