-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andrew Lih wrote:
I'm fairly sympathetic to the idea of separating out features to be doled out on a finer grain level, but many oppose it because it is creating different shades, and thereby different classes, of users, which is something Wikipedia has never been about. As mentioned in other threads, this leads to "collecting privileges" like medals or awards, when the spirit of Wikipedia has been to treat adminship as even "no big deal."
I don't think that having the rollback feature would necessarily create a different "caste" of Wikipedians. As David Gerard pointed out above, rollback can be emulated using JavaScript if really desired. Having access to rollback is really no extra privilege over the rest of the community. It's just a one-click reversion.
And, if more people have access to what were previously adminship abilities, treating adminship as "no big deal" will definitely continue.
A reminder - the primary reason for admin status was because of page deletion, and that's where the "trusted user" idea came from.
[...]
Um, but because rollback is given only to trusted users right now, this is not a problem.
Even for admins, they are discouraged from using rollback for issues related to legitimate content issues. Rollback should be used for fighting vandalism and trolling, and not as a standard part of an editor's toolbox.
In my proposal I outlined that the rollback feature is only to be used for fighting vandalism/trolling. Since users must go through a confirmation procedure similar to the current RfA one (albeit with a lower threshold), it will still only be given out to trusted users.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org