Ray (Eclecticology) wrote:

I'd like to see statistics about how many users create multiple ID's for the purpose of mischief. When a vote or policy making takes place, how much influence do these newbies have now. If a newbie's opinion is overly naïve it will stand out like a sore thumb and be ignored. On voting, I don't think that most newbies feel confident enough to participate, and those who do will not be in significant numbers. Reducing hierarchy by adding another level of hierarchy doesn't make sense. I don't support the proposal. It's trying to solve an imagined problem, not a real one.

Newbies have hardly any influencies on "old hands" such as myself. Oh, they can make suggestions and even "vote" on stuff, and if what they propose makes sense I'll try it. But if their proposals don't make sense to me I /disregard/ them.

I refuse to be tyrannized by a majority or a minority. I follow the rules laid down by our PhilosopherKing Jimbo Wales -- or, I do the best I can to follow them; I have my occasional lapses, like anyone else (Hi, Erik!).

Jimbo has consistently preached against hierarchy, which is perhaps one reason he has encouraged our Arch-Anarchist, the Cunctator, to stick around and play a leadership role. Our ideal is:

=> "Any page may be edited at anytime, by anyone."

Jimbo persistently strives to reach this ideal, and shows no signs of fatigue even in Wikipedia's third year (or is it the fourth already?).

So policy will be changed only via the interplay between Genuine Consensus and Jimbo occasionally putting his foot down. This will continue until someone comes up with a better idea.

Uncle Ed