dgerard at gmail.com
Tue Oct 10 22:06:16 UTC 2006
On 10/10/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> That principle would be flawed on a number of levels. You can undo the
> fact that someone has been blocked. Most editors can't undo deletions.
> Screwing up certain things in the mediawiki namespace is bad. The
> amount of damage an editor can do is the for the most part minimal.
> The amount of damage an admin can do both to wikipedia and other
> editors is rather more significant.
We do try to give our admins a basic sanity screen, and peer pressure
works better than I'd have expected.
(Although I've been going 'wtf' at some of the more ridiculous RFA
requirements^Wrecommendations, I must admit you're probably right when
all other systems are anticipated to be worse. If we can get the
shrubbery requesters to calm down ... as far as I can tell, having x
featured articles has *nothing* to do with admin-worthy stability
levels, either way.)
> >  Principle is my word for basic policies, as the word "policy" has
> > been tainted.
> Has anyone got around to creating a wikipediaese to English dictionary yet?
I thought we were going to redefine English usage to match our jargon,
much as the word "Wiki" in casual conversation (with an implied
capital, as far as I can tell) now means Wikipedia.
More information about the WikiEN-l