[WikiEN-l] The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

[Jay Converse]

On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being
> an
> > > > > admin really ain't that amazing.
> > > > Except for the simple fact that they can delete images, which cannot
> be
> > > > restored.  All it takes is one bad apple to completely destroy
> > > Wikipedia's
> > > > images, unless they're stopped in time.
> > > That's true now, isn't it?
> > > > And we all know how hard it is to remove an admin once he's there.
> > > That's because becoming an admin isn't automatic.
> > >
> > You're completely avoiding both my points.  If you give everyone a gun,
> all
> > it takes is one person to fire a shot for the whole town to erupt in a
> blaze
> > of gunfire.  If you give trustworthy people, a small portion of them,
> guns,
> > then those people become a symbol of trust and honesty to everyone else.
> > Obviously guns are a bit of an extreme comparison...
>
> I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an
> extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of
> holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty
> entertaining, though.
>
> [Not to get into it, but: I'm not a huge fan of a small portion of
> "trustworthy" people wielding guns. Somehow a lot of people seem to
> get killed by guns in the US nonetheless.]
>
> > Also, by using circular logic on the second point, you're ignoring the
> fact
> > that it seems to be generally thought that the current de-adminship
> process,
> > which relies on admins not coming in hundreds at a time, is already
> broken,
> > and you want to flood it even further.  You're saying that by adding
> more
> > people to be looked over, the already bogged-down system will magically
> fix
> > itself?
>
> No, I'm saying that the current system sucks, and that it should be
> replaced by an "easily given, easily taken away" philosophy.
>

I understand that.  And I'm saying that the easier it is to get, the more
prone it is to abuse.  Also, again, I do realize guns are an extreme
example.  It's 1 AM, I can't think of poetic metaphors this time of night.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.