[Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

[Liam Wyatt]

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates

As for having some level of "who polices the policeman" at least on
Wikipedia we already have bureaucrats, checkusers, admins, arbitrators,
oversighters, stewards... So I'm pretty sure we've got the checks and
balances largely sorted out. On mailing lists it is correct there is "only"
the list mods but I think I'm not the only one to believe that the
Foundatio.nl mods are behaving in an exemplary manner in trying
circumstances. Advocating for the creation of a new position of authority
seems to me like "asking the other
parent<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PARENT#Forum_shopping>
".

-Liam

wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata


On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:

> We had that. They called themselves the "Association
> of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because
> everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net
> benefit.
>
> -Chad
>
> On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, <wjhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>  I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness".  Our current
> state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor
> with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to
> affect
> a hearing.  There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins.
>
> Until that situation changes, we cannot claim to be moving toward a
> friendly
> environment.
>
> What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate.  Any arrested person has
> the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state.  That is
> what we need.  Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested
> editor.
>
> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists...
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>