Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-3416945-20160829051027/@comment-1272757-20160905081557

You know, I haven't been active beyond lurking and doing (sometimes poorly) my job as interviewer and editor of the Featured User Interview in.... I daresay months. But after reading through this, every last single comment from the time I started typing this?

I'm afraid I have to say, Myself123 is not the only one who finds objection with this concept of system.

This is a very slippery slope that the wiki would be heading down, and I think that while it would certainly help the wiki maintain its informational quality and allow for a streamlining of the system, it would be strictly a short-term solution. In the long-term, this could very well lead to killing the wiki instead.

A wiki such as SNN is not an information site first and a community second. It's the opposite; a wiki is and always will be a community first and foremost, no matter how small or quiet it might be. Removal of community consensus would only discourage new or returning Users from actively participating and doing anymore than maybe editing articles. And as we can all attest, it is only the most fringe and obscure of SNN's articles require anything more than minor work (barring future or upcoming materials).

This would mean the community, the lifeblood of SNN, would eventually lose any desire or real motivation for continued involvement. And sooner or later, that would leave only an even smaller handful of Users taking care of the wiki. And that in-turn could eventually lead to the elected council to also lose motivation, because who wants to maintain a wiki without any friends or community to interact with?

But without an active community to pick from, who would these admins and 'crats choose to replace them?

Yes, this is absolutely a worst-case scenario, perhaps even excessively so. But electing for an admin-only consensus such as this proposal makes this scenario a very possible one. And such a scenario should never be made a potential factor.

I would much rather put my old rickety wiki bones behind the alternative suggested, being we scale down the numbers required for a community consensus to be reached. I'd also (somewhat hesitantly) opt for the decision that community silence could be taken as unspoken agreement, for the sake of convenience and efficiency. It would also offer a means of motivation for people to actively make their voices heard.