[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/18/07 5:08 PM, K P at kpbotany at gmail.com wrote:

> And, this, to me, is the biggest problems with admins on Wikipedia, it is a
> BIG deal, it's such a big deal, that no one who has ever attained it should
> ever have it removed--according to the lucky few who've managed to convince
> their peers that they're just like them.    Adminship is given by people who
> spend most of their time on the web to others just like them, outsiders need
> never apply.  So, is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia that anyone can edit
> (the best idea of its time), or is it a private club for people who spend
> all their time editing Wikipedia?  It's the latter, now, and that will
> always be the entrenched ownership of Wikipedia: a small group of
> like-minded people who spend a lot of time online, people who,
> realistically, cannot be the experts or best editors for the bulk of general
> Wikipedia articles, because they don't go to libraries, they only use online
> resources, they don't know how to access resources not found in cyberspace,
> which is not currently the depository of all knowledge.
> 
> There is no willingness or ability to de-admin someone because in order to
> jump through all the necessary hoops, one has to be one of the editors who
> is like the ownership cabal: living in cyberspace, and these people would
> never risk their own future chance to join the exaulted ranks just to take
> down an administrator who does things that could get a regular editor
> permanently banned from Wikipedia.
> 
> Adminship on Wikipedia is too special, too elitist, too permanent--have the
> right number of edits and move directly to tenure, do whatever you want
> afterwards.  Editors know how to admin shop--if you have a certain bias and
> want an article to stay with your bias, there's just the perfect admin to
> take it to, instead of requests for protection, if you are one of the many
> Wikipedia editors with nationalistic agendas, you can admin-shop to make
> sure your agenda is well-represented.
> 
> If it's really no big deal, it shouldn't be handed out like it is a big
> deal, with the knowledge that it's permanent, that you've achieved status,
> that you can do whatever you want, that you can now protect the pages you
> want to make certain that your POV is locked in.
> 
> I think that people underestimate the real damage being done to Wikipedia by
> the way admins are chosen, given absolute power, made an elite class, and
> given tenure the instant they pick up the tools.  Yet, essentially there is
> no way to desysop a bad administrator at Wikipedia, because being an admin
> at Wikipedia IS a very big deal.  The RfA process is a big deal, your status
> at Wikipedia when given admin tools is a big deal, your ability to keep that
> power no matter that you do things that would get an ordinary editor, the
> common, banned, is a big deal, and your ability to manipulate Wikipedia to
> suit your agenda is a big deal.
> 
> Ec is correct, there is no consensus, besides that which the ownership of
> Wikipedia by the cyber-living has already established.  At some point, imo,
> it has to be decided, is Wikipedia a general online encyclopedia that
> anybody can edit, or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of
> people who live in cyberspace?  Because this latter group is none too fond
> of the anybodies of the world.
> 
> 
> KP

HELLO OUT THERE! THIS IS THE POST I was presenting to originally. It has to
do with attitudes - not who's doing what, or how many there are to do it. It
presents to how people are regarded and subsequently treated. It presents to
the very culture of WP itself. You can try to fiddle with the edges and
stick chewing gum in the cracks of the problems, but until the state of the
very culture itself is seriously dealt with it's going to rupture.

Marc Riddell