In a message dated 11/25/2010 3:31:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
> On 25 November 2010 22:15, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > We have Geni, many ways to determine if someone is an established
> editor.
>
> Name one that doesn't boil down to editcountitis
>
> > We have flags already to mark people as established editors in addition
> to
> > that.
>
> I for one have no wish to turn requests for rollback in a mini RFA
> more than has already happened.
>
The police always think they are doing a fine job and don't need any
accountability.
All democracies have checks and balances. Those who do not, are police
states.
Our single hierarchical structure is just such a system with no checks and
balances.
The point of having three parts to the US Government is to ensure that if
you are harassed by the police you can turn to your legislator, if you are
attacked by your legislator, you can turn to a judge. Wikipedia has a single
structure. If you are harassed by an admin, you have no recource except to
another admin. The police policing the police. I see no justice in that
system. Plenty of abuse. If you're not an admin, you have no power
whatsoever over a single admin deciding to silence you. And other police simply back
them up.
That Geni, is the entire nature of the police state. And why a police
state is not a system of government under which enlightened people wish to
operate. It only takes one run-in of this sort to send the promising editor
away. Suggesting this is an appropriate system to retain only shows the sort of
disconnect Admins have with Editors.
You assume that any editor who wants to protect themselves from this sort
of abuse should become an admin. Tantamount to any citizen wishing to
protect themselves from the Police should become a policeman. I find that sort of
attitude to be.... alarming.
Will Johnson
1. Re: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
(Anthony)
2. Re: Anti-vandalism bot census (emijrp)
3. Re: Anti-vandalism bot census (Chad)
4. Re: Anti-vandalism bot census (Chad)
5. Re: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
(MZMcBride)
6. Re: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
(Anthony)
7. Re: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
(MZMcBride)
8. Re: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
(J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov)
9. Re: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
(MZMcBride)
10. Re: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
(Birgitte SB)
11. Re: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
(WJhonson(a)aol.com)
These all topics are Maybe.
Hello,
Browsing ja.uncyclopedia.info, I got criticism on the current
fundraising (personally I took it hilarious,
and it's just a background). Among those, one thing may deserve
serious consideration to fix:
foreign currency switch doesn't work well in the current setting, even
if it is not utterly useless.
There are four buttons for donation whose amount is given in wiki
page, as template value.
These values are variables of the template so they are therefore fixed
for visitors.
The interface has currency selection switch so our donors can choose
their favorite currency:
the money amount with buttons remains as before.
So if you landed in Japanese I/F and changed your currency into USD,
you would get
four suggestions: 10K, 5K, 3K and 1.5K USD. :D
I'm aware donors can still use the form to fill with any given amount
they prefer, so it isn't a total nonsense,
but I'd like to know if there is any possibility to alter the current
specification
to increase usability.
Cheers,
--
KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp