[Foundation-l] Fwd: Re: [VereinDE-l] Bericht zur Verleihung der Zedler-Me...

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/25/2010 3:31:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
geniice at gmail.com writes:


> On 25 November 2010 22:15,  <WJhonson at 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