On 8/22/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have any evidence to support this claim of a reduction in the trust factor? I only recently (last month or two) began contributing there, and I see people arguing for or against RFAs specifically with the word trust in ever RFA.
On 8/22/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody is currently in the process of standing for adminship on en.wikipedia ... the last three ran their time and were closed earlier today.
I don't recall seeing the page empty the entire time I've been here...
- '''Support'''. We don't need new admins. ~~~~ :p
Maybe now somebody will realise that something is fundamentally wrong
with
our adminship process. It does not scale; it worked when we were
smaller,
but now it seems to me that the old indicators of trustworthiness for adminship are unreliable; in the first place, the RfA process seems to diminish the importance of the trust factor, emphasising more the
ILIKEIT
and IDONTLIKEIT factors.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What people say in their vote and why they actually voted are 2 different things. If you're new to the process you wouldnt notice it.
I can call my golden retriever a tabby cat all I want, wont make her a feline.
That said, RfA itself isnt broken, but its implementation doesnt scale. Take the same concept behind adminship, work out a better system for granting bits from that concept..