But, my dear Cunctator, we have already given one percent of the users power: Jimbo and the developers can ban anyone, even a signed-in user. Ordinary sysops, such as myself, can ban only an IP.
There are 40 sysops, out of about 200 to 300 regular contributors. So our Dear Leader and Dictator For Life -- Jimbo -- and his royal bodyguards -- are that one percent. Sysops are about 20%. It's a two-tier power hierarchy.
Don't get my wrong, I have no quarrel with the benevolence of Mr. Wales. It is by his munificence that this project got started at all. Richard Stallman couldn't do it. FSF didn't hire a genius philosophy professor like Larry Sanger.
But we can't keep limping along by trusting the judgment of the top 1%. The authority needs to be delegated, lest the burden be too big. Recall the account of Moses and the 70 elders in Genesis.
Is SoftSecurity better than written guidelines? If so, clue me in.
Ed Poor
On 10/24/02 6:23 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
But, my dear Cunctator, we have already given one percent of the users power: Jimbo and the developers can ban anyone, even a signed-in user. Ordinary sysops, such as myself, can ban only an IP.
There are 40 sysops, out of about 200 to 300 regular contributors. So our Dear Leader and Dictator For Life -- Jimbo -- and his royal bodyguards -- are that one percent. Sysops are about 20%. It's a two-tier power hierarchy.
Just to clarify, there are 40 sysops, about 400 regular contributors, 4000 registered contributors, and many thousands more readers. I was considering the 4000 registered contributors the userbase, not the 400 regular contributors. In that calculation, the sysops are 1% and Jimbo .025%. I don't consider the developers as having the power to ban anyone, since they really really shouldn't.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org