I'm sick and tired of people misunderstanding what an "administrator" of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with, and we've had nothing but trouble with this name ever since. Users misunderstand it (and ask admins to make editorial decisions). Media misunderstand it (and either do not explain it, or connect it to power and influence). And it's no wonder. "Administrator" could refer to a manager, or someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in an important official position.
When the role of "bureaucrat" was created, the name was chosen specifically so that people would not treat it as a status symbol. It should be something nobody really _wants_ -- something people do because it needs doing, not because it gains them credibility and influence. This seems to have worked reasonably well for the most part.
Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
Seriously, people.
On 06/03/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
How about "housekeeper"? It's a term with a long history in the wiki context: http://web.archive.org/web/20020621223248/http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?VolunteerHo...
Seriously, people.
Quite.
Erik Moeller wrote:
Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
The problem isn't what we call them, it's what the worst of them do. We can't keep renaming things or trying to figure out a better way to identify people if it doesn't get to the root of the problem.
Seriously. This has probably been the worst 4-6 weeks I've seen on this site since I started contributing, both on a personal and a social level. I don't care to contribute anymore due to the culture, people are dropping the site left and right (admin Doug Bell is on a wikibreak now because of the Essjay situation (not that he's part of the solution), Doc glasgow's scaled back considerably following the Essjay/Peppers fiascos, Alkivar's gone, a number of lower level users are giving up, who knows who else that I DON'T know about). And why? Because whatever you want to call them can't do their simple jobs properly (and who cares if they volunteer or not - if you can't do it right, don't do it), it gets nasty when they get called out on it, WP:IAR is being embraced like never before, causing massive internal strife, and ArbCom's only called upon to do something about it when there's a wheel war, ignoring the other issues.
I'm not sure how much more can be taken. We're at a record level of contributing and of attention, and it feels like the damn project is imploding. It needs to be fixed, and it needs a massive cleansing, not some cosmetic "hey, let's change the names of who runs the site" nonsense.
-Jeff
On 06/03/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
it feels like the damn project is imploding.
Actually, I would bet you that the vast majority of people editing Wikipedia don't even have the faintest awareness of "the Essjay situation". Hyperbole like this doesn't help.
on 3/6/07 8:35 AM, Earle Martin at wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Actually, I would bet you that the vast majority of people editing Wikipedia don't even have the faintest awareness of "the Essjay situation". Hyperbole like this doesn't help.
"Hyperbole" is a subjective term. And, again, with the denial! Anything that puts and keeps a problem in the face of those who can be a part of the solution helps enormously.
On an infinitely larger and more significant scale, do I need to cite the recent mess at Walter Reed Hospital? Are the words of the patients (victims) hyperbole?
Marc
On 06/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On an infinitely larger and more significant scale, do I need to cite the recent mess at Walter Reed Hospital? Are the words of the patients (victims) hyperbole?
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
on 3/6/07 9:11 AM, Earle Martin at wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
06/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On an infinitely larger and more significant scale, do I need to cite the recent mess at Walter Reed Hospital? Are the words of the patients (victims) hyperbole?
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Earle,
If you live in the United States, and have seen or heard any national news reports in the last week or so, you would.
Marc Riddell
On 06/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On an infinitely larger and more significant scale, do I need to cite the recent mess at Walter Reed Hospital? Are the words of the patients (victims) hyperbole?
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
If you live in the United States, and have seen or heard any national news reports in the last week or so, you would.
I don't live in the United States. Why would you have assumed that I do?
On 06/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On an infinitely larger and more significant scale, do I need to cite the recent mess at Walter Reed Hospital? Are the words of the patients (victims) hyperbole?
on 3/6/07 10:03 AM, Earle Martin at wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
On 06/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
If you live in the United States, and have seen or heard any national news reports in the last week or so, you would.
on 3/6/07 10:03 AM, Earle Martin at wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
I don't live in the United States. Why would you have assumed that I do?
Earle,
On second reading of my original response to you about this, I feel I could have phrased it better, and I had no reason to assume you lived in the US - I apologize.
If you haven't already seen the report I encourage you to do so. It concerns the physical, cultural and bureaucratic conditions that exist within, what is supposed to be, one of the best military hospitals in the US. It is a prime example of a bureaucracy in denial of problems that exist within a facility they are responsible for - and the effect this denial has had on the persons depending on them.
I wish I had a link to include here regarding this, but I can't find one at the moment.
Again, I apologize for the abruptness of by original reply.
Marc Riddell
On 3/6/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
The problem isn't what we call them, it's what the worst of them do. We can't keep renaming things or trying to figure out a better way to identify people if it doesn't get to the root of the problem.
Seriously. This has probably been the worst 4-6 weeks I've seen on this site since I started contributing, both on a personal and a social level. I don't care to contribute anymore due to the culture, people are dropping the site left and right (admin Doug Bell is on a wikibreak now because of the Essjay situation (not that he's part of the solution), Doc glasgow's scaled back considerably following the Essjay/Peppers fiascos, Alkivar's gone, a number of lower level users are giving up, who knows who else that I DON'T know about). And why? Because whatever you want to call them can't do their simple jobs properly (and who cares if they volunteer or not - if you can't do it right, don't do it), it gets nasty when they get called out on it, WP:IAR is being embraced like never before, causing massive internal strife, and ArbCom's only called upon to do something about it when there's a wheel war, ignoring the other issues.
I'm not sure how much more can be taken. We're at a record level of contributing and of attention, and it feels like the damn project is imploding. It needs to be fixed, and it needs a massive cleansing, not some cosmetic "hey, let's change the names of who runs the site" nonsense.
-Jeff
-- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.
I don't know how much of this is a warranted reaction and how much is an overreaction. I would definitely agree that there are major problems with our culture when it comes to meta/policy issues, because those involved with this backend crap burn out so damn easily - but then again, it's difficult to imagine many backbreaking backend jobs in any organisation where people wouldn't burn out easily. Still, the way we handle things in this area isn't helping.
At the same time, I think it's important to recall that WP is about the encyclopaedia, and that all else is peripheral. Vandal-fighters, RC patrollers, mass deleters, etc. come and go, but as long as there is a new supply of eager young admins to step into the breach (and there's no reason to foresee a lack of such poor bright-eyed young 'uns in the near or medium future), a high turnover rate would not be very distressing. What would be more distressing is a high turnover rate of article editors, since those are most important.
I don't see the need to get all worked up about this crap related to meta policy. I learnt a long time ago that it's not worthwhile obsessing about this stuff. The only time I deal with any process at all these days is when I want to get an article to FA status, and even then, I can't be arsed to do the work required anymore. Minor tinkering at the edges is less stressful, more fun, and even in the end, it adds up to a substantial amount. Working on the encyclopaedia and doing any odd jobs as you stumble on them through your wiki-ing travails/travels is much more fun and almost as helpful as focusing single-mindedly on trying to push through some massive but in the long run pointless policy change.
I mean, just look at all the crap some of our best minds once devoted themselves to. The inane problem of userboxes. All the hot air about that Siegenthaler issue. All the fuss about attempting to delete some random meta pages that some people have a problem with, whether they're titled [[WP:SNOW]] or [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay]].
To me, in the long run, this ain't worth two turds. The work we do on WP that will still matter in one year, two years, or ten years, will not be a snarky comment left on a talk page or a massive rebuttal to someone who is obviously in the wrong but just won't listen. The work that matters is the encyclopaedia.
You can argue that the meta stuff we do is essential to the encyclopaedia in the long run. But honestly, it doesn't matter to me whether we merge [[WP:V]] with [[WP:ATT]] or we delete some stupid RfC about a departed user, because I'll still be working on the encyclopaedia even if these things happen. And so will many others.
It's true that some meta-side stuff is inevitable. But what I'm saying is we can't let it distract us from the encyclopaedia, and I'd say the encyclopaedia's doing pretty darn well.
I'm not sure what else has happened in the past month or so that's so terrible, besides this uproar about Essjay and the usual wheel warring that seems to be ingrained in WP culture now. What I am sure of is that most editors aren't really aware of these issues, and that these things haven't affected them one bit.
I've seen a lot of people come and go in my time here. Mentioning the departure of people like Doc glasgow or Alkivar - that doesn't surprise me one bit (especially since these same people have left and returned in the past, IIRC). If anything, the past month seems to have been par for the course for WP.
Of course, that isn't an argument against raising the par (although if we want to literally apply golfing terms, I think the correct word would be lowering). But let's keep some perspective. Getting worked up over this stuff isn't going to be of much worth in the long run. We, and the project, will move on.
Johnleemk
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, John Lee wrote:
You can argue that the meta stuff we do is essential to the encyclopaedia in the long run. But honestly, it doesn't matter to me whether we merge [[WP:V]] with [[WP:ATT]] or we delete some stupid RfC about a departed user, because I'll still be working on the encyclopaedia even if these things happen. And so will many others.
It should matter to you. Becuase although it may not affect what you and "many others" do, it will affect what many more do. Having rules that make it hard for people to work on the encyclopedia can have drastic, long term, effects.
on 3/6/07 8:25 AM, Jeff Raymond at jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
The problem isn't what we call them, it's what the worst of them do. We can't keep renaming things or trying to figure out a better way to identify people if it doesn't get to the root of the problem.
Seriously. This has probably been the worst 4-6 weeks I've seen on this site since I started contributing, both on a personal and a social level. I don't care to contribute anymore due to the culture, people are dropping the site left and right (admin Doug Bell is on a wikibreak now because of the Essjay situation (not that he's part of the solution), Doc glasgow's scaled back considerably following the Essjay/Peppers fiascos, Alkivar's gone, a number of lower level users are giving up, who knows who else that I DON'T know about). And why? Because whatever you want to call them can't do their simple jobs properly (and who cares if they volunteer or not - if you can't do it right, don't do it), it gets nasty when they get called out on it, WP:IAR is being embraced like never before, causing massive internal strife, and ArbCom's only called upon to do something about it when there's a wheel war, ignoring the other issues.
I'm not sure how much more can be taken. We're at a record level of contributing and of attention, and it feels like the damn project is imploding. It needs to be fixed, and it needs a massive cleansing, not some cosmetic "hey, let's change the names of who runs the site" nonsense.
A climate is the temperature of a culture. And, right now, neither one is fit for man nor beast. Survival here is going to require some significant changes; otherwise nothing will.
Marc Riddell
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:25:43 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Seriously. This has probably been the worst 4-6 weeks I've seen on this site since I started contributing
Quite so. We can't even nuke an RfC on a user who has left, where the requested remedies have already been met or exceeded, which was never certified, and which has no evidence of any attempts at resolving the supposed dispute, because some users are absolutely determined to keep discussing it despite the fact that it is an unprecedented situation in respect of an editor who has left with his reputation very publicly destroyed, to the point where his job became untenable and future employment may well be problematic. So much for human decency - sickening indeed.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/6/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sick and tired of people misunderstanding what an "administrator" of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with, and we've had nothing but trouble with this name ever since. Users misunderstand it (and ask admins to make editorial decisions). Media misunderstand it (and either do not explain it, or connect it to power and influence). And it's no wonder. "Administrator" could refer to a manager, or someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in an important official position.
People who ask admins/sysops to make editorial decisions are simply unaware of their role. Instead of causing loads of work by renaming the position, it would IMO be more effective to educate the others. People who make editorial decisions about writing are usually called editors. Should we rename that term too?
Also, the fact people misunderstand is partly caused by admins messing up. We shouldn't be afraid to keep an eye on each other's work and make sure fellow admins follow the rules.
When the role of "bureaucrat" was created, the name was chosen
specifically so that people would not treat it as a status symbol. It should be something nobody really _wants_ -- something people do because it needs doing, not because it gains them credibility and influence. This seems to have worked reasonably well for the most part.
Seeing as how the word "bureaucrat" appears to be connected with "bureaucracy" I can't see how it could have been carefully chosen.
Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a
global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
Seriously, people.
Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/6/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
When the role of "bureaucrat" was created, the name was chosen
specifically so that people would not treat it as a status symbol. It should be something nobody really _wants_ -- something people do because it needs doing, not because it gains them credibility and influence. This seems to have worked reasonably well for the most part.
Seeing as how the word "bureaucrat" appears to be connected with "bureaucracy" I can't see how it could have been carefully chosen.
I thought the idea was to give the role negative connotations to ensure only those who really want the extra tools got them.
Johnleemk
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 3/6/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sick and tired of people misunderstanding what an "administrator" of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with, and we've had nothing but trouble with this name ever since. Users misunderstand it (and ask admins to make editorial decisions). Media misunderstand it (and either do not explain it, or connect it to power and influence). And it's no wonder. "Administrator" could refer to a manager, or someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in an important official position.
People who ask admins/sysops to make editorial decisions are simply unaware of their role. Instead of causing loads of work by renaming the position, it would IMO be more effective to educate the others. People who make editorial decisions about writing are usually called editors. Should we rename that term too?
The name change process should not be a problem, as it would happen gradually. Admins did used to be called sysops, and that term has not completely died out. Applying to be a jamitor could be renamed "Request for Brooms".
Also, the fact people misunderstand is partly caused by admins messing up. We shouldn't be afraid to keep an eye on each other's work and make sure fellow admins follow the rules.
Absolutely. But it's not just simple messing up. Defending the mess-up can be a bigger problem.
When the role of "bureaucrat" was created, the name was chosen
specifically so that people would not treat it as a status symbol. It should be something nobody really _wants_ -- something people do because it needs doing, not because it gains them credibility and influence. This seems to have worked reasonably well for the most part.
Seeing as how the word "bureaucrat" appears to be connected with "bureaucracy" I can't see how it could have been carefully chosen.
Quite the contrary. The selection was done somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Ec
On 3/6/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jamitor
Now there's an idea for a name. Play nice, follow our policies and don't be a dick or we will "JAM" you :)
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 3/6/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jamitor
Now there's an idea for a name. Play nice, follow our policies and don't be a dick or we will "JAM" you :)
:-( Ooops! Looks like our very own garage band.is out of the closet. ;-)
Ec
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:07 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The name change process should not be a problem, as it would happen gradually. Admins did used to be called sysops, and that term has not completely died out. Applying to be a jamitor could be renamed "Request for Brooms".
I'd be fine with renaming it back to sysop if it would help specify that it is more of a technical role then a management one. X
On 3/6/07, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be fine with renaming it back to sysop if it would help specify that it is more of a technical role then a management one.
I'd go for that. On some multi user systems, the "administrators" set policy and it's carried out by "operators" with elevated privileges. Still, even if you were to call them "bananas", the title would still be a big deal to some degree.
On 3/7/07, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net ...
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
People who ask admins/sysops to make editorial decisions are simply unaware of their role. Instead of causing loads of work by renaming the position, it would IMO be more effective to educate the others. People who make editorial decisions about writing are usually called editors. Should we rename that term too?
The name change process should not be a problem, as it would happen gradually. Admins did used to be called sysops, and that term has not completely died out. Applying to be a jamitor could be renamed "Request for Brooms".
I'd be fine with renaming it back to sysop if it would help specify that it is more of a technical role then a management one.
However, administrators are performing roles that are in effect editorial in nature; e.g. decisions at Afd and DRV to name just two. Changing the name of this role wont significantly decrease the perception of power/influence; it is real and as more and more new articles are being thrown on Afd, I expect that new users often form their first impressions of "administrators" due to an editorial judgement.
The current climate is at odds with [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]:
"From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else."
I'd like to throw in a more radial idea to this renaming discussion. Maybe we can separate the editorial roles out from the current administrator role, and call the new role "editor at-large", Custodian, or similar. This separation is already in practise at DRV where usually senior administrators make the final decision. The role of a sysop is then to perform technical actions where a clear policy exists, or based on the decision of a custodian. This role would be primarily more attractive to a different set of people like developers, bot operators, or people who just want to clear backlogs and don't really want to be held responsible for having made a bad editorial decision.
To restore the level playing field, the administrator "bit" could then be given to anyone who has been "active" for a six months stretch (100 edits/month?), and has maintained a defined "editing rate" (100 edits in the *last* month seems sufficient) without a formal objection being raised by another editor. This ensures the editor has been in regular and recent contact with lots of other editors, so other editors have as a collaborative group implicitly and continuously approved of the "bit". The first time a user gains the bit, they could be listed on a NewAdmins list and senior admins could keep an eye on them for strange happenings. Less paperwork and less credibility attached to the role also means it is less of a problem if the bit is revoked because nobody explicitly vouched for them in an RfA.
If these ideas have been thrashed around already, could someone point me to the previous discussions.
-- John
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
People who ask admins/sysops to make editorial decisions are simply unaware of their role.
And what do you think might cause the wrong impression of their role, if not the name of the role? :-p
Instead of causing loads of work by renaming the position, it would IMO be more effective to educate the others.
I can't think of any way to do this other than to cause a large media spectacle (otherwise the wide public is not going to take notice). And, frankly, the easiest way to do this is to rename admins to janitors and publicise that.
People who make editorial decisions about writing are usually called editors. Should we rename that term too?
No, because it is already the case that everyone is an editor, and everyone can get involved in editorial decisions, so the term is well-applied here.
Also, the fact people misunderstand is partly caused by admins messing up.
No. People misunderstand the role of admins because the role of admins is misrepresented by people (particularly the media). And it is misrepresented because, not knowing otherwise, human beings tend to assume that someone who is titled "administrator" _is_ an administrator, and not a janitor. In other words, by using the word "administrator", Wikipedians are misrepresenting it already.
If it is necessary to say "we only _call_ them 'administrators', but they're not really administrators", they shouldn't be called administrators.
Timwi
On 3/6/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sick and tired of people misunderstanding what an "administrator" of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with........"Administrator" could refer to a manager, or someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in an important official position.
In the computer world, "System Administrators" and "System Operators" (sysops) are those with special privileges on a multi user system. They can do things that ordinary users can't do. Read/delete any file, restrict user accounts. On some Unix type systems, they are members of the "wheel" group thus the term "wheel war". Wikipedia is a multi user system and Admins/sysops on Wikipedia have some of these same powers. They can delete any article, restrict any user. They need these powers and they are a necessary evil.
If a user tries to edit a page and can't because he is blocked, whether he deserved it or not it's an insult to his intelligence to tell him it was "cleanup" by a "janitor". I came to this list a few years ago because I was blocked for a month, my whole ISP was because of one vandal with an army of sock puppets and a slew of throwaway ISP accounts. You are not going to get me to believe that drastic action was done by the guy who mops the server room floor.
I say continue to call them what they are, "Administrators".
On 3/6/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
In the computer world, "System Administrators" and "System Operators" (sysops) are those with special privileges on a multi user system. They can do things that ordinary users can't do. Read/delete any file, restrict user accounts. On some Unix type systems, they are members of the "wheel" group thus the term "wheel war". Wikipedia is a multi user system and Admins/sysops on Wikipedia have some of these same powers. They can delete any article, restrict any user. They need these powers and they are a necessary evil.
If a user tries to edit a page and can't because he is blocked, whether he deserved it or not it's an insult to his intelligence to tell him it was "cleanup" by a "janitor". I came to this list a few years ago because I was blocked for a month, my whole ISP was because of one vandal with an army of sock puppets and a slew of throwaway ISP accounts. You are not going to get me to believe that drastic action was done by the guy who mops the server room floor.
I say continue to call them what they are, "Administrators".
This is exactly right, they are administrators in all of the classical computer science senses of the word. But I would also argue that they are in a way "part of the administration", since they are trusted with making some tough administrative decisions, such as AfDs. I don't think that the word "administrator" implies any sort of extra editorial power though. since they only administer (wow, I've bent that word backwards and forwards for this post, huh) the site. Plus, "janitors" would sound really stupid, especially in newspaper articles.
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 3/6/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
If a user tries to edit a page and can't because he is blocked, whether he deserved it or not it's an insult to his intelligence to tell him it was "cleanup" by a "janitor". I came to this list a few years ago because I was blocked for a month, my whole ISP was because of one vandal with an army of sock puppets and a slew of throwaway ISP accounts. You are not going to get me to believe that drastic action was done by the guy who mops the server room floor.
I say continue to call them what they are, "Administrators".
This is exactly right, they are administrators in all of the classical computer science senses of the word. But I would also argue that they are in a way "part of the administration", since they are trusted with making some tough administrative decisions, such as AfDs. I don't think that the word "administrator" implies any sort of extra editorial power though. since they only administer (wow, I've bent that word backwards and forwards for this post, huh) the site. Plus, "janitors" would sound really stupid, especially in newspaper articles.
"Janitors" is somewhat self-deprecating; "administrators" can seem pompous. If we are able to laugh at ourselves, that can be a very attractive feature.
Ec
On 06/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
"Janitors" is somewhat self-deprecating; "administrators" can seem pompous. If we are able to laugh at ourselves, that can be a very attractive feature.
If you imagine a janitor with a semi-automatic mop ...
- d.
On 3/6/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
If a user tries to edit a page and can't because he is blocked, whether he deserved it or not it's an insult to his intelligence to tell him it was "cleanup" by a "janitor". I came to this list a few years ago because I was blocked for a month, my whole ISP was because of one vandal with an army of sock puppets and a slew of throwaway ISP accounts. You are not going to get me to believe that drastic action was done by the guy who mops the server room floor.
I say continue to call them what they are, "Administrators".
I do think janitors is a problem, because it sort of implies normal users are the kind of people that are constantly making messes. I do spend a lot of time reading what people online say about wikipedia, and admins are nearly unanimously misunderstood. I do think a name change would be helpful. Custodian isn't too pretentious, and it implies caretaking, while at the same time not having too strong an implication that people need cleanup up after.
Another idea, how about Caretaker? That kinda makes me think of keeping a garden, which isn't a bad analogy at all.
Judson enwiki:cohesion
On 3/6/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sick and tired of people misunderstanding what an "administrator" of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with, and we've had nothing but trouble with this name ever since. Users misunderstand it (and ask admins to make editorial decisions). Media misunderstand it (and either do not explain it, or connect it to power and influence). And it's no wonder. "Administrator" could refer to a manager, or someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in an important official position.
Better even than changing the name would be changing the rules. Let people get admin rights automagically -- see, for example, the suggestion to pick 100 random users who have been around for a while without any trouble and give them admin rights.
On 3/6/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
I have always liked the name "custodian". It's a little like janitor, but implies that you are doing your job in order to protect and help wikipedia rather than solely cleaning up after (messy) people. I think that term fits much better with the others as well (Bureaucrats etc). Thoughts?
Judson enwiki:cohesion
On 3/6/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On 3/6/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
I have always liked the name "custodian". It's a little like janitor, but implies that you are doing your job in order to protect and help wikipedia rather than solely cleaning up after (messy) people. I think that term fits much better with the others as well (Bureaucrats etc). Thoughts?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
On 3/6/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I have always liked the name "custodian". It's a little like janitor, but implies that you are doing your job in order to protect and help wikipedia rather than solely cleaning up after (messy) people. I think that term fits much better with the others as well (Bureaucrats etc). Thoughts?
We thought through the title of "admin"/"sysop" when we set up Wikiversity - and we named it "custodian" http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Custodianship. We also organised the system by which people become custodians (or lose that status) specifically so that it would be seen as having a learning curve, and that new custodians would be peer-monitored - similar to the system of apprenticeship. It's also something that is "easy come, easy go" - it should be "no big deal" to 1) be a custodian, 2) to become a custodian, and 3) to lose your custodianship (though we haven't yet had to face the latter situation).
My general thoughts are that - no matter what we call it - "adminship" should be seen as simply a willingness to help out with the maintenance of a wiki - but that it should *not* be fetishised as an object of status, which it clearly is by many people. And yes, we're here to write an encyclopedia, as John Lee says above - but in a way it is and in a way it isn't that simple. As well as writing an encyclopedia, we're also here to create the *culture* within which to do so - and culture doesn't just exist in policy documents, nor materialise out of thin air - culture is something that we all actively construct as an inherent part of writing this encyclopedia.
Cheers, Cormac
http://cormaggio.org http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio
"Custodian" works nicely. It's properly pretentious. "Sanitation engineer" is also appealing...
On 3/6/07, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I have always liked the name "custodian". It's a little like janitor, but implies that you are doing your job in order to protect and help wikipedia rather than solely cleaning up after (messy) people. I think that term fits much better with the others as well (Bureaucrats etc). Thoughts?
We thought through the title of "admin"/"sysop" when we set up Wikiversity - and we named it "custodian" http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Custodianship. We also organised the system by which people become custodians (or lose that status) specifically so that it would be seen as having a learning curve, and that new custodians would be peer-monitored - similar to the system of apprenticeship. It's also something that is "easy come, easy go" - it should be "no big deal" to 1) be a custodian, 2) to become a custodian, and 3) to lose your custodianship (though we haven't yet had to face the latter situation).
My general thoughts are that - no matter what we call it - "adminship" should be seen as simply a willingness to help out with the maintenance of a wiki - but that it should *not* be fetishised as an object of status, which it clearly is by many people. And yes, we're here to write an encyclopedia, as John Lee says above - but in a way it is and in a way it isn't that simple. As well as writing an encyclopedia, we're also here to create the *culture* within which to do so - and culture doesn't just exist in policy documents, nor materialise out of thin air - culture is something that we all actively construct as an inherent part of writing this encyclopedia.
Cheers, Cormac
http://cormaggio.org http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Cormaggio
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 3/6/07 12:38 PM, Cormac Lawler at cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
As well as writing an encyclopedia, we're also here to create the *culture* within which to do so - and culture doesn't just exist in policy documents, nor materialise out of thin air - culture is something that we all actively construct as an inherent part of writing this encyclopedia.
Yes! Culture is about how people regard and treat each other within a group. And the quality of that culture will ultimately be reflected in the work that group produces. Does this really require a written policy? Do we really need to write down instructions on how to treat someone? Treat them the way you would like to be treated. It's a no-brainer. (Unless you are a masochist - which is a whole other issue).
Marc Riddell
On 3/6/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
Trusted user is the wrong term. Many people are trusted but not admins on a specific project. (Not to mention some admins can't be trusted).
Truster user is how a lot of people interpret it. If you look at en WP:ANI, for example, a lot of the stuff coming to that venue doesn't really need an admin's power to deal with - any trusted and reasonable user can handle a lot of the situations just by intervening politely and talking to people. And a fair number of non-admins do participate there.
On 3/6/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Trusted user is the wrong term. Many people are trusted but not admins on a specific project. (Not to mention some admins can't be trusted).
If they can be trusted then perhaps they should be admins. If they can't be then they shouldn't be admins but this should be obvious.
I would accept "trusted user" or "trustee". (we "trust" this user with the tools) but I still think "admin" or "sysop" is best. If you can push a button and wipe out an article I spent a lot of time writing or push another and keep me from editing, then you ain't no fracking "janitor".
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Erik Moeller wrote:
Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
That'll be like claiming that RFCs, TFDs, etc. are not votes. The main thing you accomplish is that you make it easier to [[WP:BITE]] the newbies since now everyone has to avoid certain shibboleths in order to be taken seriously.
On 3/6/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sick and tired of people misunderstanding what an "administrator" of Wikipedia is.
Reminds me of the whole deal of being an "IRC Operator" back in the 90s. All the official docs said that being an ircop was no big deal and they were only there to maintain servers, not get involved in channel issues. The top opers and admins would parrot this line over and over again. However, the fact was that users did consider it a "big deal", ircops frequently tried to use their powers to "fix" and "protect" channels and ircops even got to have people see "[nick] is an IRC Operator" when they did a whois and ircops got a cute little * next to their nicks in channel user lists. Those ircops who actually took the policy seriously were constantly bombarded with "please help me get my channel back" and "so and so is harassing me" requests from users. In short, it was a "big deal".
In any "social system", if it's necessary to give some people "special powers", then those people will be seen to have a "special status" and ordinary users will desire that status and some will even hate people who have that status. The effect can be minimized but it will always be a "big deal" It's just the nature of the beast.
On 3/7/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
In any "social system", if it's necessary to give some people "special powers", then those people will be seen to have a "special status" and ordinary users will desire that status and some will even hate people who have that status. The effect can be minimized but it will always be a "big deal" It's just the nature of the beast.
Well said.
Mgm
On 3/7/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sick and tired of people misunderstanding what an "administrator" of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with, and we've had nothing but trouble with this name ever since. Users misunderstand it (and ask admins to make editorial decisions). Media misunderstand it (and either do not explain it, or connect it to power and influence). And it's no wonder. "Administrator" could refer to a manager, or someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in an important official position.
It's true that "admin" is a bad name for the role. However, it's also true that it's a bad role, which blends all kinds of different priveleges together. For example, allowing admins to edit protected pages (a content role), banning people (a policing role), editing mediawiki pages (development) and viewing deleted pages (purely an issue of trust).
So, yes, by all means, rename, but to what? "Housekeeper" is good, but why can a housekeeper ban people? "Sysop" is ok, but why does a sysop get to choose which version of a page to keep in a content dispute? Since when do "janitors" tinker with system-wide JavaScript?
Steve
On 3/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm sick and tired of people misunderstanding what an "administrator" of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with, and we've had nothing but trouble with this name ever since. Users misunderstand it (and ask admins to make editorial decisions). Media misunderstand it (and either do not explain it, or connect it to power and influence). And it's no wonder. "Administrator" could refer to a manager, or someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in an important official position.
It's true that "admin" is a bad name for the role. However, it's also true that it's a bad role, which blends all kinds of different priveleges together. For example, allowing admins to edit protected pages (a content role), banning people (a policing role), editing mediawiki pages (development) and viewing deleted pages (purely an issue of trust).
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Admins are asked to make editorial decisions because they're essentially the only ones with the power to make those decisions (even if we say they don't have the authority to do so).
If admins don't make editorial decisions, and Wikipedia is not a democracy (editorial decisions aren't made by majority vote), then who makes the editorial decisions?
Frankly I think this is one place where Citizendium got it right, and by that I mean separating the admins (constables) from the editors (who make editorial decisions). I don't mean to imply that their method for choosing editors (reliance on credentials) is necessarily appropriate, just that their approach of having someone there in the first place to make these decisions, is.
Anthony