On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, valdelli@gmail.com writes:
The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of expert users.>>
Exactly the same point I've made a few times. Those who are expert in the use of the game rules, impose their view on those who are not expert.
Which is why I've suggested the establishment of a group of advocates for the editor versus the administrators who are viewed as policemen. In a real society, the only classifications are not "public" and "police". We also have checks and balances against the power of the police to force compliance.
In Wikipedia we do not have those checks and balances.
You assume that administrators are a monolithic and confrontational lot, neither of which is necessarily true, though both do happen at times.
We have the Mediators, arbcom, and experienced non-admin editors around too. Anyone who thinks admins can run roughshod over users should watch ANI for a while. We aren't great about self-policing - but we do it.