Larry Sanger wrote in part:
(1) In the absence of people who are generally respected as in authority, "rebellion" will continuously break out.
One can only have rebellion if there is someone to rebel *against*. Rebellion continuously breaks out, then, in the *presence* of people that claim to be in authority but are however not resepected as such. So there are two ways to reduce rebellion: increase the respect, or reduce the claim.
Doesn't [the moderator system] mean an even more baroque power structure? (No, I'd tentatively suggest we strip all erstwhile "sysops" of their too-easily-abusable rights, in favor of this system.)
Have administrators ("sysops") been abusing their power? While some have made *mistakes*, I haven't seen any abuse. And the mistakes are correctable, since there are many administrators (more than just 3 at any given time!). Even abuse should be correctable in this way.
I am not going to argue for this or elaborate it anytime soon. (I'd like to get the Wikipedia peer review project going first: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/sifter-l ) But I would lot to hear nonfallacious, nonvacuous, non-potshot-ish comments about it, if anyone has any.
Of course, you *have* been arguing for it since this post ^_^. But I won't hold you to a promise that was probably unwise to begin with (much as I don't hold politicians to promises to retire after 2 terms). You should be able to defend your position against unreasonable attacks (or even those that you think to be unreasonable).
-- Toby