You know as well as I do that that's not going to work. There is no old guy with a beard sitting on top of the Wikipedia servers and determining who is acting on WIkipedia's interest and who is not. WIkipedia is not a textbook, it's a real thing and we need to give operational definitions instead of unrealisable abstract ones. The key point here IS whether there is some sort of backing for the action taken, not whether the action was 'clear-sighted', because the only available measure of whether the action was clear-sighted is whether it has the backing of the community.
Molu
On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:57:07 +0100 "charles matthews" wrote:
If admin A is actually acting in WP's interests, then of course that is fine. If A is not, but is acting under some delusion, then that is not fine at all.
The key point here is not whether there is some sort of backing for the option taken, but whether the action is clear-sighted or otherwise. I don't see that the logic has to be smudged here. Admins are given discretion. If they foul it up, they are poor admins and eventually they should have their mop retired.
Charles
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
"Molu" wrote
You know as well as I do that that's not going to work. There is no old guy with a beard sitting on top of the Wikipedia servers and determining who is acting on WIkipedia's interest and who is not.
Like the man said, Please Stop Top-Posting. It makes threads extra hard to follow. Especially if you are going to say 'that', rathrr than take a few seconds to be specific.
Actually, there is the ArbCom, sitting pretty much on top of the en-WP pile. Actually, at least one Arbitrator has a beard and is middle-aged.
Actually, I was describing the line taken in dealing by Arbitrators in ruling on so-called 'wheel-warring' cases. We have ruled that the admin who is acting in (what we agree is) the interests of the encyclopedia project, rather than one who is taking a formal and procedural line, can be dealt with leniently. The cases are up there for anyone to see.
WIkipedia is not a textbook, it's a real thing and we need to give operational definitions instead of unrealisable abstract ones. The key point here IS whether there is some sort of backing for the action taken, not whether the action was 'clear-sighted', because the only available measure of whether the action was clear-sighted is whether it has the backing of the community.
No-no-no-no-no. There is a substantial 'silent majority' around (one conclusion from the January elections) and plenty of vocal stuff from people who take a 'populist' line but don't actually have much support from solid citizens. We have a measure of representative democracy on the administration, and direct democracy would not be an improvement.
Charles