Tim Starling wrote:
This is of course the exact opposite to the position of
Michael Turley
and Erik, who believe that the problem is in the existence of a power
structure, rather than the solution. Some Wikipedians believe that all
our problems can be traced to a deviation from anarchy, and that the
solution lies in denigrating would-be leaders by calling them "janitors"
or "bureaucrats". I respectfully disagree with this philosophy, I put my
hope in enlightened democratic leadership rather than the mob.
Some people complain that those in power are a cabal, rather than an
accountable and democratic body. I'd prefer it if they'd use a more
accurate word (despots?), but besides that, it will remain a perfectly
valid criticism for as long as there is no easy way for the community to
remove them from power.
-- Tim Starling
I believe you've mischaracterized me. I do not believe that there is a problem in the
existence of a power structure. There needs to be a clearly defined power structure.
But I do believe that there is a lack of real accountability to the very highest standards
and ideals that this project claims to be founded on.
When RfCs are dismissed on the premise of 'this contributor just gives too much effort
to Wikipedia to reprimand', and when an arbitrator calls someone a jerk without a
unanimous grumble of disapproval as the '''first''' reaction, just
to post two examples, we're not living up to the welcoming concepts that so attracted
me here in the first place.
I can live with it, but I'd rather look for ways to change it. If people call me a
troll, or a member of a pack of idiots, for wanting to see people nudged toward the
implementation of the ideals, then I can live with that, too.
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web -
http://www.myway.com