Evo said:
Seems that a long time admin at wiki has been desysopped and banned. He's been falsifying and deleting facts that he disagreed with and defacing the biography pages of scientists he didn't like, all to push his agenda. Turns out he's been doing it for years.
This underscores a need for some sort of qualified, perhaps credentialed level of review.
I, for one, would hate to see any of the following three things happen with Wikipedia:
1. An entrenched hierachy rules with an iron hand, whereby legitimate appeal is squashed 99% of the time.
2. A peer-reviewed culture where the "majority rules" is the watchword of the day.
3. An anarchic environment whereby both legitimate posters and vandals have equal reign.
Thus, I envision a level of ownership well beyond that of "ad hoc revision wars loosely moderated by a few who've entrenched their power." That model is little different than "Ug and Og, being friends, thump Oog."
At best, it might incorporate all three of top-down, peer, and subordinate review, with more weight at the top, but not so much than the peer and subordinates couldn't override an embedded hierachy with a modicum of effort, if the issue was both obvious and necessary.
Is there any way to pay these people? With Wales still asking for donations, I doubt it. With him unable to translate billions of hits a year into better advertising revenue, particularly when 10% of the pages get 90% of the hits, that's just his own dang fault.
