[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)

[Poor, Edmund W]

Erik decried the creation of an elite and the resultant imbalance of power.

I agree to some extent, and I do worry about the results he predicts. But as I wrote last week, we already have an elite, and there already is an imbalance of power.

Jimbo has supreme power.

The developers have all the rights of sysops, plus the "can" revoke anyone's sysop status, ban a signed-in user and permanently erase any version of any article. (This doesn't mean they're "authorized" to, just that the power is in their hands.)

The sysops can protect or "delete" a page and ban any IP, even one used by a signed-in contributor, as was done temporarily to Lir. Sysops can edit a protected page.

Ordinary signed-in users have immunity from banning, although they might have to jump through hoops if their IP is blocked. They can't delete pages, edit protected pages or block IPs. They get a user page.

The non-signed-in can edit any page except the few protected pages, and they don't get a user page. They can be blocked by any sysop.

Can anyone view this as other than a 5-level hierarchy, with each level having more power than the levels below? Are not the higher levels an elite? Is this not an "imbalance of power"?

The question is not how to avoid creating an imbalance of power, but what to do with the current imbalance. If everyone is satisfied with the 5 levels we currently have (as is Cunctator, apparently), then we need do nothing. That is what Jimbo will most likely do: don't fix it, 'cause it ain't broken.

But Larry and others are saying:
* it's broken, so fix it or I'll leave, or
* it's broken, and you didn't fix it, so I'm leaving

I'm saying:
* it's broken, so let's all put our heads together and find a way to fix it before it falls apart completely

Ed Poor