MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
People who ask admins/sysops to make editorial decisions are simply unaware of their role.
And what do you think might cause the wrong impression of their role, if not the name of the role? :-p
Instead of causing loads of work by renaming the position, it would IMO be more effective to educate the others.
I can't think of any way to do this other than to cause a large media spectacle (otherwise the wide public is not going to take notice). And, frankly, the easiest way to do this is to rename admins to janitors and publicise that.
People who make editorial decisions about writing are usually called editors. Should we rename that term too?
No, because it is already the case that everyone is an editor, and everyone can get involved in editorial decisions, so the term is well-applied here.
Also, the fact people misunderstand is partly caused by admins messing up.
No. People misunderstand the role of admins because the role of admins is misrepresented by people (particularly the media). And it is misrepresented because, not knowing otherwise, human beings tend to assume that someone who is titled "administrator" _is_ an administrator, and not a janitor. In other words, by using the word "administrator", Wikipedians are misrepresenting it already.
If it is necessary to say "we only _call_ them 'administrators', but they're not really administrators", they shouldn't be called administrators.
Timwi