Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so) have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal". They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
As I understand things, these admins view themselves as the indispensable shield between Wikipedia and the world, which is full of devious and persistent vandals. Without them (the admins), Wikipedia would fail utterly. Essentially, they carry the weight of the survival of Wikipedia on their shoulders.
Each new admin, having just gone through a "rigorous" application and approval process, has essentially been selected for taking this sort of view. And each new admin has every good reason for maintaining or increasing the requirements for successive admins. In this respect, it becomes very like the process of hazing found in many clubs and exclusive organizations). This trend toward ever more "rigorous" requirements has led to cases of hazing on some US university campuses that were so severe the "applicant" died as a result.
Of course, the admins point to the very real challenges that vandals pose as the reason for the rigor of the application process. They reject any proposal that might place Wikipedia is peril.
Perhaps they're right. I'm certain that they truly want what it best for Wikipedia.
But what I don't see is any real desire for a change in this trend toward ever more rigorous requirements for becoming an admin. What I don't see is any concern for the inherent conflict between the mere existence of admins and the wiki principles that are the real reason for the success of Wikipedia. I don't see any comprehension of the possibility that the elitism of admins is the cause of some of the vandalism. What I don't see is recognition that there is a problem worth working on.
Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will happen towards solving the problem.
-Rich Holton (user:Rholton)
Rich Holton wrote:
Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so) have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal". They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
You're not wrong, and I'm of the opinion that we are in a situation where we have an elite class already. The problem is twofold:
1) Adminship *is* a big deal, whether we want it to be or not. We trust them to do too much, expect a lot of them, and it's very difficult to remove or sanction an administrator who acts inappropriately.
2) More importantly, adminship is viewed as a reward rather than a responsibility, thus creating a protector group of admins. There's one recently-promoted admin in particular who embodies this concept, but there are many like him.
Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will happen towards solving the problem.
It has to, and you're absolutely right. Judging by the current RfA crop, it doesn't appear to be changing either - one person I'm very uncomfortable with but can't figure out why is sailing through, and one person who really should be given the bit is being opposed for even sillier reasons than some of the opposes on mine.
The Foundation is unlikely to get involved, and Jimbo really should, but won't. I wish there was a better answer.
-Jeff
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:24:10 -0500 (EST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
You're not wrong, and I'm of the opinion that we are in a situation where we have an elite class already. The problem is twofold:
Whoa there. Wikipedia is reputation based. We have editors who have a firm place in whatever elite one might infer we have, by dint of their contributions, but who are not and never will be admins. And that's before we get to Giano...
- Adminship *is* a big deal, whether we want it to be or not. We trust
them to do too much, expect a lot of them, and it's very difficult to remove or sanction an administrator who acts inappropriately.
Ah, but...
No, it's not a big deal. The RFA queue always includes a steady stream of people who get through on the nod. Perversely, the longer you've been around, and the higher your profile, the harder this gets. The threshold (leaving aside the perennial demands for shrubberies) is making a decent number of edits without making waves. Mind you, I would not be sysopped if I went for RFA now, but maybe it's *good* that these days we don't want bad-tempered argumentative opinionated old farts to be admins.
No, it's not hard to sanction an admin. All they have to do is something stupid. The big problem is that there is a reluctance to bring those sanctions before the community. We seem to have nothing between "ZOMG! He deleted my article on my band I just formed last week! Rouge admin abuse!" and total meltdown. The main problem, I think, is that there is no calm atmosphere for discussing the performance of admins (and that brings us back to the thread earlier about admin meltdown). I seriously do believe there should be a place for admins to discuss their actions and quietly admonish each other for being bloody silly *without* making it a three-ring circus. And yes, that goes against the Wiki ethos, but the problem with openness is that there are a lot of POV-pushers out there just looking for chinks in the armour. I'd hope the need for privacy would be temporary, but I perceive it as being there. I also believe that trusted non-admins should be allowed to take part. Just not any-old-editor coming to take the next pot-shot at whatever admin stepped in to stop their particular content dispute.
Then again, in other ways, it is a big deal - but only when you don't get it or when it's taken away. Funny business. We've lost a number of decent people because they found being voted down at RFA too bruising. So being promoted sysop is the only thing that makes the process of an RFA bearable.
- More importantly, adminship is viewed as a reward rather than a
responsibility, thus creating a protector group of admins. There's one recently-promoted admin in particular who embodies this concept, but there are many like him.
You might want to run that past a few admins and see how loudly they laugh. Seriously, anyone who wants to be an admin should try it for a couple of weeks and see how they like it.
Some people get the God complex on promotion, but I don't see it lasting long. Everyone grows up.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Whoa there. Wikipedia is reputation based. We have editors who have a firm place in whatever elite one might infer we have, by dint of their contributions, but who are not and never will be admins. And that's before we get to Giano...
Ba-dum-ching!
No, it's not hard to sanction an admin. All they have to do is something stupid. The big problem is that there is a reluctance to bring those sanctions before the community. We seem to have nothing between "ZOMG! He deleted my article on my band I just formed last week! Rouge admin abuse!" and total meltdown.
That's fair. But...
The main problem, I think, is that there is no calm atmosphere for discussing the performance of admins (and that brings us back to the thread earlier about admin meltdown). I seriously do believe there should be a place for admins to discuss their actions and quietly admonish each other for being bloody silly *without* making it a three-ring circus. And yes, that goes against the Wiki ethos, but the problem with openness is that there are a lot of POV-pushers out there just looking for chinks in the armour. I'd hope the need for privacy would be temporary, but I perceive it as being there. I also believe that trusted non-admins should be allowed to take part. Just not any-old-editor coming to take the next pot-shot at whatever admin stepped in to stop their particular content dispute.
This *could* act as a solution, but not as a great one. I mean, right now, as it stands, if an administrator (to use my pet peeve) is consistently abusing the speedy deletion policy, I have one choice to have anything substantive done about it - ArbCom. Of course, no one really wants to do that, and it doesn't always result in a prompt resolution - one open-and-shut case I presented last summer still took weeks, which is fine, but isn't always helpful. Etc etc.
Your clearinghouse idea has significant merit, though.
- More importantly, adminship is viewed as a reward rather than a
responsibility, thus creating a protector group of admins. There's one recently-promoted admin in particular who embodies this concept, but there are many like him.
You might want to run that past a few admins and see how loudly they laugh. Seriously, anyone who wants to be an admin should try it for a couple of weeks and see how they like it.
I should be clearer. The reward part of it comes from the editor class, not the administrator class - I'm sure admins knee deep in the muck don't see it as a reward. However, the result of users nominating users as a reward and then becoming a protector type still stands - I see it too much not to be concerned by it. It's not a god complex as much as something else I can't find the words for.
-Jeff
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:24:10 -0500 (EST), "Jeff Raymond"
- More importantly, adminship is viewed as a reward rather than a
responsibility, thus creating a protector group of admins. There's one recently-promoted admin in particular who embodies this concept, but there are many like him.
You might want to run that past a few admins and see how loudly they laugh. Seriously, anyone who wants to be an admin should try it for a couple of weeks and see how they like it.
Some people get the God complex on promotion, but I don't see it lasting long. Everyone grows up.
It has less to do with what they do after promotion. It's the title not the work that garners prestige.
Ec
On 2/13/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so) have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal". They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
You're not wrong, and I'm of the opinion that we are in a situation where we have an elite class already. The problem is twofold:
- Adminship *is* a big deal, whether we want it to be or not. We trust
them to do too much, expect a lot of them, and it's very difficult to remove or sanction an administrator who acts inappropriately.
- More importantly, adminship is viewed as a reward rather than a
responsibility, thus creating a protector group of admins. There's one recently-promoted admin in particular who embodies this concept, but there are many like him.
Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will happen towards solving the problem.
It has to, and you're absolutely right. Judging by the current RfA crop, it doesn't appear to be changing either - one person I'm very uncomfortable with but can't figure out why is sailing through, and one person who really should be given the bit is being opposed for even sillier reasons than some of the opposes on mine.
The Foundation is unlikely to get involved, and Jimbo really should, but won't. I wish there was a better answer.
-Jeff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I do concurr with jeff this time.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:38:55 -0600, "Pedro Sanchez" pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
I do concurr with jeff this time.
I agree with Jeff on almost everything apart from actual deletions :-)
Guy (JzG)
Jeff Raymond wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so) have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal". They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
You're not wrong, and I'm of the opinion that we are in a situation where we have an elite class already. The problem is twofold:
- Adminship *is* a big deal, whether we want it to be or not. We trust
them to do too much, expect a lot of them, and it's very difficult to remove or sanction an administrator who acts inappropriately.
- More importantly, adminship is viewed as a reward rather than a
responsibility, thus creating a protector group of admins. There's one recently-promoted admin in particular who embodies this concept, but there are many like him.
Yes and yes.
Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will happen towards solving the problem.
It has to, and you're absolutely right. Judging by the current RfA crop, it doesn't appear to be changing either - one person I'm very uncomfortable with but can't figure out why is sailing through, and one person who really should be given the bit is being opposed for even sillier reasons than some of the opposes on mine.
The Foundation is unlikely to get involved, and Jimbo really should, but won't. I wish there was a better answer.
If Jimbo has to step in to solve this problem we have failed. What it takes is a person with the power to act to take _bold_ action and start appointing admins according to more liberal and sensible criteria. Those of us who have been here a long time need to be ready to support him during the inevitable storm that follows. Just talking about this problem will solve nothing.
Ec
It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so) have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal". They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
I think adminship is a big deal. The amount of time we devote to talking about it is evidence to that. Things have changed a lot since Jimbo made that famous comment.
As I understand things, these admins view themselves as the indispensable shield between Wikipedia and the world, which is full of devious and persistent vandals. Without them (the admins), Wikipedia would fail utterly. Essentially, they carry the weight of the survival of Wikipedia on their shoulders.
And it's probably true. Of course, admins aren't the only such group. Wikipedia would fail utterly without people who write new articles, without people who do copyediting, without non-admins that fight vandals, without the people that do newpage patrol, without the people that help mediate disputes, etc. etc. etc. Wikipedia needs a very large number of different people, all of which are indispensable.
Each new admin, having just gone through a "rigorous" application and approval process, has essentially been selected for taking this sort of view. And each new admin has every good reason for maintaining or increasing the requirements for successive admins. In this respect, it becomes very like the process of hazing found in many clubs and exclusive organizations). This trend toward ever more "rigorous" requirements has led to cases of hazing on some US university campuses that were so severe the "applicant" died as a result.
Admins aren't a self-selecting group. Anyone can !vote on RfA. I don't know what percentage of RfA !votes are cast by admins, although I'd be interested if anyone has the statistics. Perhaps non-admins need to be encouraged to participate in RfA more to make sure such self-perpetuating requirements don't have such a strong effect.
On 2/13/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
We already have it.
It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so) have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal". They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
Don't try and blame it on the new admins. It is nothing new.
As I understand things, these admins view themselves as the indispensable shield between Wikipedia and the world, which is full of devious and persistent vandals. Without them (the admins), Wikipedia would fail utterly. Essentially, they carry the weight of the survival of Wikipedia on their shoulders.
It is true that admins as a group are the thin nerdy line between Wikipedia and the less pleasant parts of the net.
Each new admin, having just gone through a "rigorous" application and approval process, has essentially been selected for taking this sort of view. And each new admin has every good reason for maintaining or increasing the requirements for successive admins. In this respect, it becomes very like the process of hazing found in many clubs and exclusive organizations). This trend toward ever more "rigorous" requirements has led to cases of hazing on some US university campuses that were so severe the "applicant" died as a result.
Not so much. See the problem with increasing standards is it means future admins will be better than you are and you end up looking at massive backlogs. There is enough work to go around.
and in [[user:Llama man]]'s RFA less than 40% of those !voteing are admins.
Of course, the admins point to the very real challenges that vandals pose as the reason for the rigor of the application process. They reject any proposal that might place Wikipedia is peril.
Of course. Admins tend to play things safe. There would be serious objections if we did otherwise.
Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will happen towards solving the problem.
Look at the talk archives of [[WP:RFA]].
I think admins play it too safe.
- Cool Cat
On 2/13/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/13/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
We already have it.
It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so) have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal". They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that
way.
Don't try and blame it on the new admins. It is nothing new.
As I understand things, these admins view themselves as the indispensable shield between Wikipedia and the world, which is full of devious and persistent vandals. Without them (the admins), Wikipedia would fail utterly. Essentially, they carry the weight of the survival of Wikipedia on their shoulders.
It is true that admins as a group are the thin nerdy line between Wikipedia and the less pleasant parts of the net.
Each new admin, having just gone through a "rigorous" application and approval process, has essentially been selected for taking this sort of view. And each new admin has every good reason for maintaining or increasing the requirements for successive admins. In this respect, it becomes very like the process of hazing found in many clubs and exclusive organizations). This trend toward ever more "rigorous" requirements has led to cases of hazing on some US university campuses that were so severe the "applicant" died as a result.
Not so much. See the problem with increasing standards is it means future admins will be better than you are and you end up looking at massive backlogs. There is enough work to go around.
and in [[user:Llama man]]'s RFA less than 40% of those !voteing are admins.
Of course, the admins point to the very real challenges that vandals pose as the reason for the rigor of the application process. They reject any proposal that might place Wikipedia is peril.
Of course. Admins tend to play things safe. There would be serious objections if we did otherwise.
Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will happen towards solving the problem.
Look at the talk archives of [[WP:RFA]].
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think admins play it too safe.
I agree. There are many cases when what the community wants isn't in the encyclopaedia's best interest. The concept of consensus seems to take precedence over doing what's right. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to define when it is appropriate for an admin to just do what's right and when they should listen to the community.
I think it boils down to: When does community opinion on a specific situation outweigh community opinion on the general policy that is relevant to that situation? It's a tricky question to answer.
On 2/13/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think admins play it too safe.
I agree. There are many cases when what the community wants isn't in the encyclopaedia's best interest. The concept of consensus seems to take precedence over doing what's right. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to define when it is appropriate for an admin to just do what's right and when they should listen to the community.
I think it boils down to: When does community opinion on a specific situation outweigh community opinion on the general policy that is relevant to that situation? It's a tricky question to answer.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
More tricky when those policies involve matters outside wikipedia. For instance, when there're legal issues involved, and the community wants to do it the other way
More tricky when those policies involve matters outside wikipedia. For instance, when there're legal issues involved, and the community wants to do it the other way
If there are definite legal issues then it's easy - the law definitely takes precedence over consensus. Possible legal issues (ie. lots of comments starting: "IANAL") are quick tricky to handle. Chances are there is no legal issue and you should go with the community, but if you're wrong, the consequences could be nasty.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
More tricky when those policies involve matters outside wikipedia. For instance, when there're legal issues involved, and the community wants to do it the other way
If there are definite legal issues then it's easy - the law definitely takes precedence over consensus. Possible legal issues (ie. lots of comments starting: "IANAL") are quick tricky to handle. Chances are there is no legal issue and you should go with the community, but if you're wrong, the consequences could be nasty.
The "legal issues" are often red herrings. There is very little disagreement about getting rid of what is obviously illegal. Beyond a certain point being safe becomes being paranoid.
Ec
Rich Holton wrote:
Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
Nah! It's more like the time of the French Revolution when all citizens were equal but some were more equal than others.
It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so) have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal". They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
It's called self-interest.
Of course, the admins point to the very real challenges that vandals pose as the reason for the rigor of the application process. They reject any proposal that might place Wikipedia is peril.
Right! The right to bear arms is justified because it keeps America safe from being overrun by elephants.
Perhaps they're right. I'm certain that they truly want what it best for Wikipedia.
As the saying goes: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Ec