Board Thread:Deletion and Overhaul/@comment-5585298-20140327170524/@comment-24317446-20140420051431

Muzic Beaner wrote: Your analogy fails to properly describe the proper form of going about selecting an admin. But given you used the playground example let me ask you this.. Is a playground CRITICAL to the society, or its future growth, expantion, stability? NO. therefore the GOV WOULDN'T ask the nation for an opinion. HOWEVER, selecting an INDIVIDUAL TO RUN THE COUNTRY (PRESIDENT/ADMIN)... now thats a different story.. hence we have ELECTIONS AND VOTING every 4 years. If it works at a NATIONAL level I dont see why it wouldn't work here :) The thing is, it DOESN'T work at a national level. People only know who they're voting for through advertisements and conferences. That doesn't give great insight into the mindset and desires of the candidate. Similar to national elections, I think the regular Wiki user doesn't have great insight into the minds and desires of the candidates, either, so I give this a -1. I prefer that Bureaucrats hand-pick Admins because the Bureaucrats have the most experience with the Wiki, hence they can detect who has the most potential and enthusiasm to help the Wiki with Administrator permissions. It also promotes good coordination and cooperation between the Staff's decision-making and overall work effort, since the Bureaucrats are working with people they have chosen themselves, so they are more confortable with working with people they know they can trust, hence resulting in growth and prosperity for the Wiki. Plus, usually the user a Bureaucrat picks for Administrator already has a good standing with the community, so the vote is effectively redundant anyways.

NOTE: Essentially, the idea that a democratic system will prevent users from abusing Admin rights is false. The Bureaucrats hand-picking Admins is the best way to go, that is why every other Wiki does it.