On 6/21/05, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I remember, three users have been desysopped. It is a big thing - and it so it should be, which is why it's dealt with the way it is now. Our admins are generally our contributors that have been here the longest and in almost all cases, have put in tireless amounts of work to improve the encyclopedia (and anyone who isn't an admin, unless they either don't want to be an admin, or are in some way a dick, should be one in the future with a few more contributions).
There's a problem right there. Not every editor has the same set of wants and needs. Just because someone is a good editor doesn't mean that they will be a good admin.
You've outlined adminship as something like having a driver's licence - everyone should be able to get one once they are off their Learner's Permit - when to my mind it should be something more like becoming a Justice of the Peace or a police constable.
Look at the way you've defined entry and exit paths. Easy to get in and hard to get out. There's an imbalance in the process.
I'm not just flapping my keyboard here. I'm one of a very small number of "admins" in a web community of a size comparable to Wikipedia, and I've been given the task of creating a class of special users, who will have privileges and recognition beyond that of the average member. Given the nature of the tasks they will have to do, the selection process is crucial, and I'm wondering how to go about it. Do I set an arbitrary bar of membership time and number of actions performed, or do I make it a matter of having those "in the know" selecting "people like us"?
The example of Wikipedia is before me, and I'm trying to find out out what works and what mistakes to avoid.