Guettarda wrote:
On 2/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/8/07 10:34 PM, Michael Snow at wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
We are supposed to be focusing on quality, not quantity, with
respect to
the encyclopedia articles. It's high time we did the same for administrators.
A resounding YES!
Marc
I'd have to say a resounding NO. The article quality philosophy says that we have enough articles and we should put higher priority on improving the ones we have than adding new ones. That philosophy isn't workable with admins.
Without the context provided by the remainder of my message, I'm afraid you've misunderstood what I meant by this. I was addressing the way we evaluate candidates for adminship, a bloated process that emphasizes quantity (as in volume of activity) over quality.
I am more concerned that we have a process to choose quality administrators, rather than invent a way to get large numbers of mediocre-to-poor ones. The current system badly needs to be redesigned to accomplish the former and avoid the latter. A natural byproduct of this may well be that we get more administrators because the process is not so tortuous.
--Michael Snow
On 2/9/07, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
I am more concerned that we have a process to choose quality administrators, rather than invent a way to get large numbers of mediocre-to-poor ones. The current system badly needs to be redesigned to accomplish the former and avoid the latter. A natural byproduct of this may well be that we get more administrators because the process is not so tortuous.
I agree with this. Over the past year or so I have been hesitant to nominate anyone because I prefer not to push anyone I like into the process unless they ask for it. Particularly anyone who does not have a stratospheric edit count or extreme activity in policy formation; it's very insulting for a reasonable, productive user to be opposed for "lack of experience" for not having a 3000+ edit count and I've seen it happen far too often.
-Kat
On 2/10/07, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
it's very insulting for a reasonable, productive user to be opposed for "lack of experience" for not having a 3000+ edit count and I've seen it happen far too often.
Especially since the ways people normally get 3000+ edit counts quickly is repetitive actions, like vandalfighting and semi-automatic fixes. 3000 edits of real article creation is a lot of work, and yet someone who actually produces real content tends to get dumped on.
-Matt