[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted...

[George Herbert]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM,  <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> valdelli at 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.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com