On 2/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.
That is not a solution, Ray. That is the act of opening the proverbial can of worms. Think of the consequences.
What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs", then what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
The reality is that there are significant differences (far more than you suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be significant consequences, please tell us about them.
Or as the editor of a dead-tree encyclopedia might say, "Think of the consequences of letting just anybody edit."
Ec
The consequences that we should most consider, imo, are the consequences of losing anybody because our adminship is so poorly thought out and so hostile to the individual who doesn't live in cyberspace, both by creating a position of privilege unavailable to these editors, adminship, and by creating an exclusive group on Wikipedia that is oftentimes overtly hostile to these part-time editors. It was possible, just because of this atmosphere, to totally dismiss the possibility on this thread that I, as one of these outsiders, could even make a contribution to Wikipedia. I do volunteer charity work, in addition to spending time with family, job and passion--no successful charitable organization that relies upon volunteers should ever discredit people who have only a few hours to give.
What's great in Wikipedia is due to the huge variety of anybodies, not the small exclusive group of admins, and creating a body of administrators who are so incredibly like-minded, which is what the current RfA process and the big deal about adminship create, is not conducive in the long run to making Wikipedia a place where anybody can edit.
And the consequences of letting anybody edit are becoming clearer over time. Here is one of anybody's edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sei_Whale
Don't forget to compare Britannica's article on the same subject.
KP