QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 1st July 2009, 1:18pm)
Peter, I have an analogy and I was wondering if you might agree that it is a fair analogy to your situation at RFA (and in general at WP).
[...]
There is much in what you say, MB. However, the analogy is not entirely accurate. What if the proposal meant that 90% of the Lion's club members couldn't help with this work, and would have to take up some other hobby instead? Then, I put it to you, the resistance to the ideas would rise above logic and reasonable argument and would reflect the vested interest of 90% of its members.
That is the real situation, I believe. Most of the activity on Wikipedia is vandals changing articles, and then vandal-fighters changing them back. It is an entirely pointless and futile activity and should end. But this would leave 90% of admins without a job (for I believe that most of them are incapable of serious editorial work). Not very popular.
Now I could give plenty of evidence that all the positive contributions to Wikipedia come from individuals who have an interest in a limited subject area. Because Wikipedia is accessible to millions of people globally, this means that pretty much all subject areas (with the exception of specialist academic areas like mine) get covered. It would therefore be perfectly possible to prevent IP's from editing, require registered accounts, and encourage these people to edit more.
But this would put the vandal fighting faction out of business.
Thus, your analogy I think is a little bit flawed, although thanks for suggesting it. There is much good in what you do in Wikipedia, MB.