Zephram Stark wrote:
<snip>
I can think of one reason: total disclosure would not
be loyal to the
cause. The faithfulness I see amongst administrators is important to
the smooth operation of an association. Yet historically, it has
also been the breeding ground for corruption. Exclusion is a sure
warning sign that methods of punishment are forming and malfeasance
is creeping into the system. When it gets to the point that
administrators like Jayjg and SlimVirgin don't even try to tie
punishment back to any rule or standard of Wikipedia, we can know for
certain that their actions are driving off good editors and
contributors to this work.
Dear sir,
I find your ideas intriguing / interesting and wish to subscribe to your
newsletter / journal.
At some point, the corruption becomes so blatant that
it is
impossible to get much of anything productive accomplished. At that
point, the system fails. I hope you will not wait that long. When
there is ample evidence of two of your administrators using their
power to bias the content of articles, it is time for them to
relinquish that power. Loyalty can include all Wikipedia editors
when our editing power is equal.
1. Make everyone a sysop.
2. ???
3. Profit!
YHBT YHL HAND.
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \