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.