Herostratus - love me or leave me Options Rating

[A Horse With No Name]

Because Wikipedia was lacking dramah.

Is there a point to any of this?

[Subtle Bee]

Jimbo has proclaimed his latest "philosophical thoughts". I'm reminded of Jack Handy.* His first axiom is that "[t]here is broad support for the idea that admins need not keep the same high level of popularity that was necessary to originally become an admin." It's a little like putting the cart before the horse, then shooting the horse while the cart rolls back over the carcass, and then pondering where to go from there. He finishes with this moving endorsement:

It is not clear to me that we can write a policy that gains broad consensus. But if we can, I support the idea in principle.

Now THAT is leadership.

*I think it's sad that a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs.

[EricBarbour]

Jimbo has proclaimed his latest "philosophical thoughts". I'm reminded of Jack Handy.

Now that's the smartest thing anyone has said in this thread so far.
Jimbo IS Jack Handey.
With the exception: unlike Jack Handey, Jimbo is utterly tiresome and
not the slightest bit funny or entertaining.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Fri 25th June 2010, 5:23am

[Somey]

Jimbo IS Jack Handey.
With the exception: unlike Jack Handey, Jimbo is utterly tiresome and not the slightest bit funny or entertaining.

Right, but what am I, chopped liver? Jimbo Wales couldn't come up with material like that if his life depended on it.

Besides, the whole basis for this thread tangent is non-valid. These aren't "philosophical" thoughts at all - and bear in mind that Jimbo is someone who considers Ayn Rand to be a "philosopher." What he posted is little more than quasi-political navel-gazing, probably meant to set himself to take some of the credit in the exceptionally unlikely event that the WP'ers manage to come up with some sort of actual RfA reform plan.

The more interesting post is this one by S Marshall (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who gets perilously close to a workable solution, but predictably suggests "unbundling" admin rights along purely systemic lines (i.e., separating delete/undelete from block/unblock, for example)... when what they need is a two- (or perhaps three-) tier administrative system along experiential lines, one that protects established users from n00bs and vice-versa.

They'll resist the idea of using time-in-game as a criteria for setting up hierarchies because it looks anti-egalitarian, not to mention MMORPG-like. But they have to accept their MMORPG-like nature if they're going to survive, because that's where the culture is headed, and as for the other thing, Wikipedia only pretends to be egalitarian. It's not, and it never has been.

[CharlotteWebb]

Besides, the whole basis for this thread tangent is non-valid. These aren't "philosophical" thoughts at all - and bear in mind that Jimbo is someone who considers Ayn Rand to be a "philosopher." What he posted is little more than quasi-political navel-gazing, probably meant to set himself to take some of the credit in the exceptionally unlikely event that the WP'ers manage to come up with some sort of actual RfA reform plan.

The more interesting post is this one by S Marshall (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who gets perilously close to a workable solution, but predictably suggests "unbundling" admin rights along purely systemic lines (i.e., separating delete/undelete from block/unblock, for example)... when what they need is a two- (or perhaps three-) tier administrative system along experiential lines, one that protects established users from n00bs and vice-versa.

You could tar-pit that phirosophy under Forgetting S. Marshall so we can continue cracking dumb jokes uninterruptedly as our favorite shit-head burns up re-entering the herostrato-sphere.

RfA can be held for those who have adminship already.

The best words which could ever be said about that can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=229906&diff=prev