RfC to (semi-permanently) desysop blocked admins

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ty_desysop

Note that unlike previous desysoping proposals done under the guise of "security", this proposal would require a new RfA (or request to ArbCom) in addition to an unblock to regain admin rights.

[wexter]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ty_desysop

Note that unlike previous desysoping proposals done under the guise of "security", this proposal would require a new RfA (or request to ArbCom) in addition to an unblock to regain admin rights.

Requests for comments - everyone has an opinion.

Ironically, there is a growing realization, in an RFC thread, "that incorrect information" gets into Wikipedia and cannot get corrected. There is also a realization that Wikipedia processes don't work.

There is no guideline that states that incorrect information should be removed!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _guideline

....more from the thread...

we have no commitment to accuracy or correctness.

.....

About a dozen years ago I fought tooth and nail to get "verifiability, not truth" removed from policy because it's important that we try to tell the truth

.....
one person's "truth" may be another person's "lie"

In prior posts, using Wikipedia's own guidelines, Wikipedia does not hide that it is mostly wrong.

According to Wikipedia's own internal quality assessments; less than a minuscule 1/20th% of all articles (.17% percent) are verified to meet some kind of quality standard. The incorrect articles are even a larger percentage because once an article is a "certified good" it becomes very difficult to downgrade the article should it degrade over time.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2523&p=22985&hilit ... ong#p22985

Here, on this forum, there is a tendency to "speak to the person" which never gains traction;

"There are many details on this forum which speak to the "foibles" of Wikipedia and its myriad of "eccentric" participants. I say "foibles" because when you look at each problem independently, each infighting weirdo or autistic, or each issue on its own merit, the narrative falsely comes across as a bunch of minor incidents and examples."

The big issue to me (why I hate Wikipedia) is that it is wrong and not correctable, everyone external to Wikipedia thinks it tells the truth and is reliable, the concept is fatally flawed, and Wikipedia dominates search as a monopoly (on behalf of, in partnership with Google, and just like Google) with no alternatives allowed to compete.

(ChatGPT type-technology may be the first meaningful early-state alternative. Notice how Google, Musk, Amazon, and everyone's uncle is trying to get on that band wagon as to scratch out a monopoly.

A societal commitment to quality information would improve overall outcomes for everyone but instead we have false information courtesy of "big business."