On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > >> The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the >> processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia >> don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of expert >> users.>> > > Exactly the same point I've made a few times. Those who are expert in the > use of the game rules, impose their view on those who are not expert. > > Which is why I've suggested the establishment of a group of advocates for > the editor versus the administrators who are viewed as policemen. In a real > society, the only classifications are not "public" and "police". We also > have checks and balances against the power of the police to force compliance. > > In Wikipedia we do not have those checks and balances.
You assume that administrators are a monolithic and confrontational lot, neither of which is necessarily true, though both do happen at times. We have the Mediators, arbcom, and experienced non-admin editors around too. Anyone who thinks admins can run roughshod over users should watch ANI for a while. We aren't great about self-policing - but we do it. -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
