All of this leads one to wonder -- is there any list of n editors (for any value of n, and editors, not admins), who hold enough sway on Wikipedia such that all of them boycotting (or starting to complain, or vandalize, or god knows what) simultaneously would force whomever to institute some systematic change?
I mean would 50 top editors do it? 100? 200?
I suspect not, for there is no value of whomever that can make anything at all happen on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of Mike Godwin, and his powers are substantially limited in scope.
Stripping Tyrant-for-Life status from admins by making them stand again every year or two, or instituting some other kind of term limits would solve at least a few of the worst problems on Wikipedia, and Kelly Martin's random jury pool idea would solve many others, but it does not appear that either of those ideas will ever get a fair hearing, much less be implemented, in the post-apocalyptic warlord society that is Wikipedia.
|