| Line 192: |
Line 192: |
| | '''FURTHER REPLY''' Many Harry Potter fans are under 12 years old. And if an adult editor is naming himself after a silly Harry Potter figure, then that is also worth knowing. If an editor deleting pages on Wikipedia called himself "Winnie the Pooh" or the "Easter Bunny" then that would raise some concerns. Does Wikipedia have an age limit on editors? Does Wikipedia have a requirement that editors be informed, or be objective, or even take their responsibilities seriously? It is startling that an editor having power to delete entire entries in Wikipedia names himself after a silly Harry Potter figure. By the way, I do doubt that editor has an informed understanding of the Bible, and I also doubt he even cares. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:39, 30 January 2007 (EST) | | '''FURTHER REPLY''' Many Harry Potter fans are under 12 years old. And if an adult editor is naming himself after a silly Harry Potter figure, then that is also worth knowing. If an editor deleting pages on Wikipedia called himself "Winnie the Pooh" or the "Easter Bunny" then that would raise some concerns. Does Wikipedia have an age limit on editors? Does Wikipedia have a requirement that editors be informed, or be objective, or even take their responsibilities seriously? It is startling that an editor having power to delete entire entries in Wikipedia names himself after a silly Harry Potter figure. By the way, I do doubt that editor has an informed understanding of the Bible, and I also doubt he even cares. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:39, 30 January 2007 (EST) |
| | ::'''Reply''' What on earth does the fact that many harry potter fans are under 12 have to do with this debate? The editor is clearly not under 12. (or even under 16 as you said before.) Yes, Wikipedia does have standards for admins, (you keep calling him an editor. Isn't anyone who makes an edit an editor?) they have objectivity standards, and if you read the discussion that Dpbsmith posted further down the page you can see how they choose their admins. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:54, 30 January 2007 (EST) | | ::'''Reply''' What on earth does the fact that many harry potter fans are under 12 have to do with this debate? The editor is clearly not under 12. (or even under 16 as you said before.) Yes, Wikipedia does have standards for admins, (you keep calling him an editor. Isn't anyone who makes an edit an editor?) they have objectivity standards, and if you read the discussion that Dpbsmith posted further down the page you can see how they choose their admins. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:54, 30 January 2007 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | : '''REBUTTAL''' I read Dpbsmith's link below with interest. The administrator was picked by majority vote over some compelling dissenting views. This Wikipedia process does nothing to ensure objectivity or to restrain tyranny of the majority. Apparently he's a foreign law student who names himself after a silly Harry Potter figure. If he were a juror in a real case, then many would request that he be recused immediately for lack of seriousness and responsibility. Yet he apparently has the authority to delete hundreds or thousands of entries. I think he may be amused by censoring hours of someone else's useful work. I'm not amused.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2007 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | '''Relpy''' Upon what do you base this claim? Does the name "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" indicate ignorance of the bible? I must confess my disappointment in your judgment of this editor based on nothing but his user name. | | '''Relpy''' Upon what do you base this claim? Does the name "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington" indicate ignorance of the bible? I must confess my disappointment in your judgment of this editor based on nothing but his user name. |
| | | | |
| Line 201: |
Line 204: |
| | | | |
| | :P. S. Some may be curious to read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington the discussion] that took place prior to his being given administrative privileges at Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:00, 30 January 2007 (EST) | | :P. S. Some may be curious to read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington the discussion] that took place prior to his being given administrative privileges at Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:00, 30 January 2007 (EST) |
| | + | |
| | + | : '''REPLY''' Thanks again for the insightful link, Dpbsmith! That did open my eyes about the selection of administrators at Wikipedia. Basically, it's majority vote, and there was some strong dissent in giving this individual administrative privileges. I suspect that some of his supporters liked the politics of this law student, and that's how bias rises to control (sometimes called tyranny by the majority). I'm not the only one to be taken aback by his choice of username.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2007 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | ==Wikipedia does/doesn't distort Benjamin Franklin's position on deism?== | | ==Wikipedia does/doesn't distort Benjamin Franklin's position on deism?== |