Changes

: '''REBUTTAL'''  I read Dpbsmith's link below with interest.  The administrator was picked by majority vote '''<1>''' over some compelling dissenting views. '''<2>''' This Wikipedia process does nothing to ensure objectivity or to restrain tyranny of the majority. '''<3>''' Apparently he's a foreign law student who names himself after a silly Harry Potter figure. '''<4>''' If he were a juror in a real case, then many would request that he be recused immediately for lack of seriousness and responsibility. '''<5>''' Yet he apparently has the authority to delete hundreds or thousands of entries. '''<6>''' I think he may be amused by censoring hours of someone else's useful work. '''<7>''' I'm not amused.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)

: '''REBUTTAL'''  I read Dpbsmith's link below with interest.  The administrator was picked by majority vote '''<1>''' over some compelling dissenting views. '''<2>''' This Wikipedia process does nothing to ensure objectivity or to restrain tyranny of the majority. '''<3>''' Apparently he's a foreign law student who names himself after a silly Harry Potter figure. '''<4>''' If he were a juror in a real case, then many would request that he be recused immediately for lack of seriousness and responsibility. '''<5>''' Yet he apparently has the authority to delete hundreds or thousands of entries. '''<6>''' I think he may be amused by censoring hours of someone else's useful work. '''<7>''' I'm not amused.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)

:'''Reply''' I have so many rebuttals that I had to seperatly number them with corresponding marks in your argument to keep it organized. here they are<1>Actually it is not done by majority vote, but is a "discussion" after which one of the people in charge of choosing admins (I think that they are called Beuracrats) decides the issue.  <2> Actually there were 4 people who were against, and 4 neutural, and none of their arguments were very compelling.  <3> It is not popular vote, (see above) so it isn't "tyranny of the majority," and he was chosen based on his previous work on Wikipedia. If that is not unbiased, could you please give an example of how to choose admins in an unbiased manner.  <4> Have you read the Harry Potter books? If not, then how do you know htat the character is silly?  <5> An admin's job is not comparable to a juror's , so your argument does not work.  Also an editor has to show responsibilty ''before even being consedered'' as an admin.  <6> If he was deleting "hundreds or thousands of entries" that should not have been deleted, then his admin prevelidges would have been taken away.  <7> This is a reckless personal attack with no basis in fact, and should not even be consedered in this debate.

:'''Reply''' I have so many rebuttals that I had to seperatly number them with corresponding marks in your argument to keep it organized. here they are<1>Actually it is not done by majority vote, but is a "discussion" after which one of the people in charge of choosing admins (I think that they are called Beuracrats) decides the issue.  <2> Actually there were 4 people who were against, and 4 neutural, and none of their arguments were very compelling.  <3> It is not popular vote, (see above) so it isn't "tyranny of the majority," and he was chosen based on his previous work on Wikipedia. If that is not unbiased, could you please give an example of how to choose admins in an unbiased manner.  <4> Have you read the Harry Potter books? If not, then how do you know htat the character is silly?  <5> An admin's job is not comparable to a juror's , so your argument does not work.  Also an editor has to show responsibilty ''before even being consedered'' as an admin.  <6> If he was deleting "hundreds or thousands of entries" that should not have been deleted, then his admin prevelidges would have been taken away.  <7> This is a reckless personal attack with no basis in fact, and should not even be consedered in this debate. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 21:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)