4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 460:
Line 460: + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 02:51, March 10, 2007
, 02:51, March 10, 2007→Jimmy Wales and atheism/passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism
:::::::::Admins can be disciplined by Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, generally someone has to complain first. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Admins can be disciplined by Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, generally someone has to complain first. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::: To be clear, admins are very rarely disciplined, and when they are the discipline is generally for abuse of the admin tools, not for anything else. Indeed, if one looks at the prominent examples of admins being disciplined they have almost nothing to do with politics or religion. For example, there was a group of admins who got into a wheel war over deleting/restoring the article on Daniel Brandt and one of them was desyopped as a result. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::: To be clear, admins are very rarely disciplined, and when they are the discipline is generally for abuse of the admin tools, not for anything else. Indeed, if one looks at the prominent examples of admins being disciplined they have almost nothing to do with politics or religion. For example, there was a group of admins who got into a wheel war over deleting/restoring the article on Daniel Brandt and one of them was desyopped as a result. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::: Disciplining admins is ''very'' rare. I don't know exactly how admins have had their admin status revoked but I'll bet it's on the order of one a year, or less. "Banning" users (permanent blocks) are very rare, too, and it only happens after more discussion online that you could possibly believe. (A "wheel war" is analogous to an edit war and occurs when two sysops alternatively undo and redo some action). There are currently 849 active admins on Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Two more points to be made. First off, the feeling of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" up to this suggestion seem to be things that could be rectified. This one is doubtful if it could be rectified if it is indeed an issue. Secondly, if it was the case that this is a valid criticism, then a likewise valid criticism of conservapedia is that it was founded by a Christian conservative. This is not to say that either Christian conservative or objectivist is a bad thing, but if one is a valid criticism, then the other is likely too. As this is not part of the criticisms section of wikipedia (for good reason) to include it here would reduce any moral high ground that is had. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Two more points to be made. First off, the feeling of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" up to this suggestion seem to be things that could be rectified. This one is doubtful if it could be rectified if it is indeed an issue. Secondly, if it was the case that this is a valid criticism, then a likewise valid criticism of conservapedia is that it was founded by a Christian conservative. This is not to say that either Christian conservative or objectivist is a bad thing, but if one is a valid criticism, then the other is likely too. As this is not part of the criticisms section of wikipedia (for good reason) to include it here would reduce any moral high ground that is had. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)