Office of Advocate missing

OK I think your suggestion for including helping advocacy as an important criterion for admin rights seesm like a just and good step. But I think you should not disdain training and self assessment as vehicles fro getting there either. Wikilawyering is such a pejorative term in wikipedia,that creating a judiciary and constabulary probably is impractical and beyond the bounds; but that itself seems a basic problem in wiki culture: it avoids thoughtful and human solutions in favor of hip, flippant kluges that are fundamentally flawed --- and so o o o (for instance) POV deletions trump incremental aggregations and improvements.

re: "a basic problem in wiki culture": deficiency of "thoughtful and human solutions" is a basic problem of anonymous online communication culture, observed way before the advent of 'internets', not to say wiki. the problem is lies in an inherent contradiction: "human solutions" cannot be implemented in a mechanical way: humans quickly screw them up or circumvent. The only solution is to change the humans themselves. And history show this is a long, gradual evolution, over generations. This evolution can only be guided, not prescribed.

Some complain here to the end that this wikimedia statement is but waving hands and preaching. Well, wikipedia has plenty of rules and processes already. That they not always work is because they are underused, misused and abused. Do we need the policies on how to use the policies? Do we need to have a rule on how to "discourage disruptive and hostile behavior, and repel trolls"? Well, I have a good one: block for failure to "repel trolls".

I guess I have too little experience with Wiki. I have encountered no trolls yet and have no idea what to do If I did; so I guess I do not know what you mean by failure to repel trolls. Please expalin, and is this a new thread or is t related to building advocates?

It was a joke. My point was that some commenters seem to expect from the 'Resolution:Openness' too much: they seem to have expected to see a ready-to-use recipe how to make everything OK, and make it right now. Well, the document must be read for what it is: a mission statement, a "new-year resolution". It must be taken on a personal level, not on bureaucratic level. Making rules less complicates or more complicated and then enforcing them is useless for advancement of this mission. An extreme case was communism. The ultimate goal was noble: to make all people equal, good, and happy. But to make it "fast and now" the solution was to kill all who was not equal, good, or happy, rather than to wait for people to gradually become good, equal and happy. While capitalism does not look ideal society, there is a vast difference between 19th century, with teenagers working 12 hours a day, and today. Just the same, I say, en: wikipedia has changed a lot in 10 years. And it will continue to change. And the goal of any mission statement is to nudge the course of change in right direction, rather to prescribe some rules and laws. Altenmann 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)