Debate:The divide between RationalWikians, episode II

Proposition
(There was Debate:The divide between RationalWikians, way back in the day. If you were wondering. This one is about something rather different.)

Here is my entirely neutral set of questions:


 * 1) Is RationalWiki a mobocracy?
 * 2) Should RationalWiki be a mobocracy?

Yes, I've done too much useful editing recently, and feel like having a pseudo-philosophical debate about meta-RationalWiki again. It's actually can be rather stimulating (no, not in that way. For me, at least...), though I doubt many people will really respond. 05:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is a mobocracy, and I think that works fine, as evidenced by the fact that we have the Loya Jirga in place but only one case has come before it. The only shortcoming I can think of is that we sometimes have to waste a lot of energy dealing with trolls instead of blocking them, but I do not think that altering the mere form of Wiki government will help with that. 06:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mobocracy. Has there ever been evidence to the contrary?  Corry (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) I think it mostly depends on how you define "mobocracy," which has been vague from the start. It seems to me that yes, the system we have works fine, but it isn't a mobocracy - we have editors with more "authority," broadly put, than others. A true mobocracy would have no editor whose decision meant more than another's, no Loya Jirga, no fiat of the site owner or, now, RW Foundation, and no status elevation of some. Yes, there is a status elevation of a few types of editors, albeit minor. I think we are a democratic meritocracy, one whose levels of efficacy vary inversely with the levels of corruption among the higher-ups. 06:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen the bureaucrats make an important decision without taking pains to get consensus from every single editor on the Wiki? 06:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)