On 1 June 2010 05:56, Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Let's not mince words: Wikipedia administratorship
can be a serious
liability. The 'reward' for volunteering for this educational nonprofit can
include getting one's real name Googlebombed, getting late night phone calls
to one's home, and worse. The Wikimedia Foundation has never sent a cease
and desist demand to the people who have made a years-long hobby of driving
its administrators away.
It is hardly surprising that, in this weak economy, wise editors have been
declining offers of nomination.
This is IMO asymptom of there being insufficient admins. And again,
this is because of ridiculously ratcheted-up requirements by serial
objectors at RFA that have no reasonable threat model attached.
The way it's done at RationalWiki is that sysophood is inflicted on
almost all regular editors without their asking. The criterion is
"mostly harmless." That way, it really is "no big deal." Of course,
that's a wiki with 1/1000 of the activity of en:wp. (Some powers that
sysops have on en:wp, such as editing interface text, are reserved to
bureaucrats. I realise this just puts the problem off another level.
But then again, the cycle of heavily active participation is 18 months
anyway, so changing everything every couple of years keeps the system