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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/23/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)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..
--
-Brock