I agree that the blanket denial is unconvicing in the face of the many specific, substanted accounts of admin abuse floating around. If this admin--or any other--wanted to actually change people's minds on the subject, they could start by specifically adressing some of the claims that are out there in a more meaningful way than "Soandso is a sock puppet and a spammer, we have secret checkuser data confirming it." I'm sure it isn't their intent, but the impression I get from these sorts of responses is that these wiki admins don't feel any obligation to explain their actions to the "community" (quoted for absurdity due to the anti-communal shift in Wikipedia's administration), which only reinforces my perception of them as a chummy, politicking, autocratic clique that is out of touch with Wikipedia's explict purpose.
I'll tell you the worse problem with democracy. On the day that the poorest 51% of the population discovers it can vote itself the wealth of the richest 49%, economic collapse is imminent.
This is not a problem for American democracy because of a little thing called the Constitution. This danger was forseen by the founders who initially made property, and not "the pursuit of happiness," one of the original inalienable rights in the DoI. It is a reason why private property rights are firmly ensconced in the BoR. Sure, we could amend private property protections out of the Constitution, but that would take a supermajority in both house and approval of 3/4 of state legislatures. Even if the poorest 51% managed to get the supermajority--already an incredibly long shot for reasons including our current districting system and the importance of money in electoral campaigns--the legislatures in the richer 49% of states--I'm looking squarely at you, fellow Connecticutians--would never allow such a thing. And don't you say, "the poorest 51% will write a new Constitution..." because that isn't democracy, that's simply a tyranny of the majority.
Argh, I've done it again, I really need to work harder to keep realism out of/. political discourse.
Your greatest cynicism is unrealistic. I'm a pollster who spends several hours a week analyzing polling data--believe me, that's a lot more than most "informed" folks--and the biggest issue in this election is unquestionably Iraq War II: Electric Boogaloo. This is a "change" election that will turn on the perceived failures of the Bush administration. The biggest factor is Bush's 30% approval rating and the structural disadvantage it gives Republicans, particularly those who haven't been careful to distance themselves from the war (among the top 3, that's McCain).
God and abortion are important, sure, followed by gays and, more distantly, guns, but these issues are no more prominent now then they have been in the past 20 years. You've also left out three issues that feature even more prominently in the minds of voters: immigration, health care and climate change.
And if you don't think this is an important election, you haven't been paying attention. The next president will manage the disengagement in Iraq (yes, it's inevitable), some sort of health care reform (although a total re-imagining is unlikely), the immigration question, give an up-or-down on a carbon tax/cap and trade scheme, and probably appoint 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices.
In short, your "analysis" is superficial and about 6 years out of date. But I guess I'm the idiot talking politics on Slashdot. So ignore the above--RON PAUL FTW!!!!111
Slashdot Mirror
It didn't seem that bad to me.
And don't you hypercritical armchair linguists generally prefer Latin plurals?
Just because public (or semi-public) institutions sometimes violate our trust doesn't mean that it is acceptable for them to do so.
I agree that the blanket denial is unconvicing in the face of the many specific, substanted accounts of admin abuse floating around. If this admin--or any other--wanted to actually change people's minds on the subject, they could start by specifically adressing some of the claims that are out there in a more meaningful way than "Soandso is a sock puppet and a spammer, we have secret checkuser data confirming it." I'm sure it isn't their intent, but the impression I get from these sorts of responses is that these wiki admins don't feel any obligation to explain their actions to the "community" (quoted for absurdity due to the anti-communal shift in Wikipedia's administration), which only reinforces my perception of them as a chummy, politicking, autocratic clique that is out of touch with Wikipedia's explict purpose.
Argh, I've done it again, I really need to work harder to keep realism out of
Your greatest cynicism is unrealistic. I'm a pollster who spends several hours a week analyzing polling data--believe me, that's a lot more than most "informed" folks--and the biggest issue in this election is unquestionably Iraq War II: Electric Boogaloo. This is a "change" election that will turn on the perceived failures of the Bush administration. The biggest factor is Bush's 30% approval rating and the structural disadvantage it gives Republicans, particularly those who haven't been careful to distance themselves from the war (among the top 3, that's McCain).
God and abortion are important, sure, followed by gays and, more distantly, guns, but these issues are no more prominent now then they have been in the past 20 years. You've also left out three issues that feature even more prominently in the minds of voters: immigration, health care and climate change.
And if you don't think this is an important election, you haven't been paying attention. The next president will manage the disengagement in Iraq (yes, it's inevitable), some sort of health care reform (although a total re-imagining is unlikely), the immigration question, give an up-or-down on a carbon tax/cap and trade scheme, and probably appoint 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices.
In short, your "analysis" is superficial and about 6 years out of date. But I guess I'm the idiot talking politics on Slashdot. So ignore the above--RON PAUL FTW!!!!111