If there are one or two good generally trusted people preferably with admin powers intent on reverting the nonsense, they can continue to do it. Many of us have a few articles we watch intensively.
Or, assuming we're a community, the situation would be suitable for encouraging wider participation--just as for other contentious matters.
I do recognize that this is perhaps a special case--and I hope will not be followed by attempts from the same quarter to sneak their way into the admins. Personally, I follow JS Mill, that we must be open even to those who would destroy us. If the great majority of the community want to protect it, we will not be destroyed.
On 10/20/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Oskar Sigvardsson [mailto:oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 04:50 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]] indefinitely full protected
On 10/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a routine protection; it's a longstanding, active, serious abuse case.
Even so, this is not what we've ever done! What this is is an effective elevation of admins into a specially protected "super"-editor class that have full powers to decide and control what goes in an article. That is NOT what an admin is supposed to do, article contents have always been decided by community consensus. It is a foundational issue, right up there with Free Content and NPOV.
This is counter to what wikipedia is. We're not Citizendium.
--Oskar
I guess "anyone can edit" is the fundamental principle. However the article in question is being edited only by the operatives of an organization and a few others who have become expert regarding the organization. Essentially, one side of the debate is being carried on by sock and meatpuppets that never give up.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l