[Theforum] Re: Article Approvals

[isaac]

> both. either! if miriam, for example, wanted to approve articles, i'd
> vouch for her not only because I'm friends with her 'in real life', but
> because she's volunteered on numerous occasions.

yes.

> joel, who i've never met and only really known a short time is another
> person i'd vouch for simply because he(and others i did and did not
> mention) have shown a HUGE level of commitment to making evolt better.

yes.

> jenny(my girlfriend) on the other hand, i wouldn't give access to :) sure,
> i trust her more than anyone, but she doesn't have any business editing
> articles.. i think what i'm getting at is each case is unique and needs to
> be looked upon in that way. i'm not saying we should do a huge group add
> to priv level 3 here :)

bullshit! you've previously advocated giving priv=3 to anyone who
volunteers:

"ya. if someone wants to approve articles, they should be able to."

fuck yeh they should be able to; *IF* they're a trusted member of the
community. for me, that would be 95% of theforum last time i checked the
list membership. but it's not automatic. it has to be the group deciding in
each case.

i've said continuously that this should be decided by the existing
membership of that group.

if your sole issue is one of elitist/private voting, then make that
completely clear and we'll work to change that.

you seem to have big problems with any mention of "qualifications/reference
checks", etc. in reality, what would happen is that 95% of people would
recognise madhu's name (for example) alone and vote him in. but if he throws
onto his nomination a sentence that says "i've written some articles and
been on thelist for 6-12 months", anyone who doesn't recognise the name can
know that he's not full of shit.


> i think most of us are pretty good judges of character.. I also think that
> people are, on the whole, trustworthy. i really can't see someone wasting
> the time to become trusted just to delete a couple articles off a web
> developers website that they know are going to be restored anyways...

yeh, *trust*. the decision is made based on trust. quite different from your
"give priv=3 to everyone who asks" point, and far more similar to my
suggestion of a vote from existing members based on trust of the applicant.

> which question should i have paid more attention to? ;)

your answer. ;)


i