[WikiEN-l] [[Daniel Brandt]] is gone again

[geni]

On 6/14/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Desysopping A Man in Black for stepping forward to wrestle with this
> octopus would be absurd. He's proposed a solution that will put an end
> to the drama, so long as everyone behaves sensibly and the article(s)
> are written properly.

Your proof of that claim should be interesting. Particularly your
attempt to reason around the trouble the ==author== section of the
NameBase article will cause.

> The problem doesn't lie with the procedure for closing, but with the
> fact that we allow anyone, almost certainly including people with
> multiple accounts, to have an equal say in deciding matters of
> importance to the project.

So far all suggested alternatives are worse. I would have thought the
Essjay incident with have convinced you that the self selecting elite
idea is even worse.

> It's one thing to be the encyclopedia that
> anyone can edit, but it's another to be a top-ten website that anyone
> of any age determines the direction of, even if it includes running
> over a cliff like a bunch of lemmings.

Legally anyone over the age of 18 in the US can determine the
direction of wikipedia. They don't even need any edits.


> At some point, we'll have to face that allowing any account, even a
> very recent one, to take part in policy discussions, BLP issues, and
> important AfDs is editorial, moral, and legal folly.

Anything else however is not logically supportable. Arguments gain
strength through their logic and their consistency with observed
reality. Not who makes them.

-- 
geni