Luna wrote:
On 2/9/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The system we use for editing pages (the one you think should be extended to admin powers) results in an enormous amount of vandalism, which takes a lot of effort to clean up.
Exactly. It's bad enough when vandals make giant penises float over the main page. I'd rather not have random vandals blocking /16s, unprotecting [[Main Page]] (or even deleting it), and creating other public relations nightmares -- just imagine the media field day. Wikipedia is already an amazingly open site, in just about every sense -- some people already say we're *too* open, and while I don't think I'd go that far, I'm not eager to give too many people access to tools which have the capacity to do a great deal of harm, when used inappropriately.
When I consider adminship, I don't think of it as a big deal. It's a useful tool. Admins aren't the heart and soul of the wiki, by any means -- we are involved in its upkeep, yes, but I know every minute of vandal patrolling I do would be flat-out *useless* if not for the countless hours spent by our fantastic writers.
I think I just need evidence that somebody: (a) is reasonably aware of policy and practice, (b) is reasonably dedicated to the well-being and ideals of the project, and (c) is reasonable, period.
How we determine those three points, I figure is up to some interpretation.
Just my take on it, -Luna
How is (a) related to your concerns about "random vandalism"?
-Rich