[WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia

[Molu]

You know as well as I do that that's not going to work. There is no old guy with a beard sitting on top of the Wikipedia servers and determining who is acting on WIkipedia's interest and who is not. WIkipedia is not a textbook, it's a real thing and we need to give operational definitions instead of unrealisable abstract ones. The key point here IS whether there is some sort of backing for the action taken, not whether the action was 'clear-sighted', because the only available measure of whether the action was clear-sighted is whether it has the backing of the community.
   
  Molu


    On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:57:07 +0100 "charles matthews" wrote:
  
>If admin A is actually acting in WP's interests, then of course that is 
>fine. If A is not, but is acting under some delusion, then that is not fine 
>at all.

>The key point here is not whether there is some sort of backing for the 
>option taken, but whether the action is clear-sighted or otherwise. I don't 
>see that the logic has to be smudged here. Admins are given discretion. If 
>they foul it up, they are poor admins and eventually they should have their 
>mop retired.

>Charles 

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com