Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Silverback: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Silverback (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 67:
Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Candidate_statements/Jpgordon suggested] that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? [[User:Marsden|Marsden]] 16:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:I believe in the wiki approach, and the only change we need is a change in the culture of "The wrong version, IAR and deference among the admins. Because of these the admin culture is contributing to disorder rather than order and providing an excuse for more authoritarian measures. Make no bones about it, if wikipedia becomes more authoritarian it will be because that is what the powers that be wanted all along and they were just looking for an excuse to do it. All this wiki culture needs is to openly and fairly enforce the minimalist set of rules and policies that we have. I'm not saying there may not be a need for a minor tweak here and there, to optimize the minimalist set of rules, it may even take as little as a few precedents from the arbcom. In reality IAR is actually more authoritarian in the sense of being perceived as arbitrary and ad hoc (dictatorlike), than merely enforcing the policies rather mechanically and predictably would be.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 05:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
==Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk==
| |||