The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/3/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/3/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
More (and automatic) admins, I say.
This is the easiest, fastest, most efficient, least work-intensive method...
of dismantling Wikipedia from the inside out.
I'd say a good portion of our vandals are kids who have nothing better to do. This is the same kind of kid who, from experience with forums, and various other free forms of online entertainment, will perform the bare minimum of actual work necessary to get whatever power, MP3, level they want.
If you tell people they need to browse 6 months and get 1000 edits and they will be automatically admin'd, you will see people adding content to articles one word at a time, making meaningless edits to pages over and over again, and doing that until they hit 1001, then sit around until 6 months have passed up. Then they'll go nuts using their admin powers in incredibly new and damaging ways.
Wow, you have not only a minimum faith in the good nature of your fellow man, a lot of faith in their lack of anything better to do.
You'd be surprised how much time some people have on their hands, and how completely and utterly nuts some people are.
Automatic adminship is NOT the way to go. Absolutely not. To be honest, I don't think we need to be admitting admins at the rate that we are. Hell, RfA pretty much is an automatic approval process at this point anyway, and I've seen infrequent complaints that some admins getting through aren't quite stable. Just imagine what would happen if we put adminship in the hands of, essentially, everyone.
Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being an admin really ain't that amazing.
Isn't it? There are already quite a few admins who block users with the minimum of warnings, using obscure block messages, don't have an email address set, and won't respond to what other users are saying.
Now please, stop being disingenious and get back to whatever it is on Wikipedia that you're good at.