Jay Converse wrote:
I think that may be a symptom of the problem that is #wikipedia's general unwillingness to be on topic. People are going to go where they can have a serious discussion, whether or not that's the right place for it.
Or follow me from channel to channel wanting to argue Deletion 101 ... a "discussion" I could probably conduct entirely in macros by now.
I'm still not convinced #wikipedia-en-admins is a great idea as it stands, but it *does* tend to be on-topic more often.
#wikipedia is officially not an official Wikimedia channel for all sorts of good reasons ;-)
- d.
And this isn't a cabal... how?
-Luigi
David Gerard wrote:
Jay Converse wrote:
I think that may be a symptom of the problem that is #wikipedia's general unwillingness to be on topic. People are going to go where they can have a serious discussion, whether or not that's the right place for it.
Or follow me from channel to channel wanting to argue Deletion 101 ... a "discussion" I could probably conduct entirely in macros by now.
I'm still not convinced #wikipedia-en-admins is a great idea as it stands, but it *does* tend to be on-topic more often.
#wikipedia is officially not an official Wikimedia channel for all sorts of good reasons ;-)
- d.
By why are you so little using the #wikipedia-en ?
ant
David Gerard wrote:
I'm still not convinced #wikipedia-en-admins is a great idea as it stands, but it *does* tend to be on-topic more often.
I'm not sure either, but I can tell you one thing it is very very good for.
There are many many times when I need to quietly ask a group of trusted editors to look at a problematic article -- for example, we get a complaint from someone fairly obscure, on a topic I know nothing about, and I look at the article and it is obvious crap. The channel is already proving useful in that regard.
--Jimbo
I'm still not convinced #wikipedia-en-admins is a great idea as it stands, but it *does* tend to be on-topic more often.
There are many many times when I need to quiep of trusted editors to look at a problematic article -- for extly ask a grouample, we get a complaint from someone fairly obscure, on a topic I know nothing about, and I look at the article and it is obvious crap. The channel is already proving useful in that regard.
Trusted editors == admins? Should I feel vaguely insulted?
So far I've resisted the temptation to want to be an admin. I don't have much interest in stopping vandals at the day-to-day level, and there are plenty of admins to carry out tasks like renaming pages, deleting, undeleting etc. I occasionally wish that admins would be a little less enthusiastic about impressing their personal preferences on others (the Wikipedia tagline being a good example). But in general, not being an admin hasn't caused me any hardship, or caused me to feel "left out" of anything.
Secret IRC channels of "trusted users" consulted on important decisions may make me rethink this.
Steve
On 1/25/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Secret IRC channels of "trusted users" consulted on important decisions may make me rethink this.
The point is, as I see it, not that admins are inherently more trustworthy due to some intrinsic property, but that the set of all non-admins includes a much higher precentage of batty and untrustworthy folk than the set of all admins. It's not a personal slight against you, and it's not even a generalization of any kind. It's a pragmatic decision. People who have jumped through the hoops to become admins are by and large more experienced and thoughtful people, so when you want to get something done, you're more likely to get it done if you ask an admin.
Really, I don't see how any evil can come of this.
Ryan
generalization of any kind. It's a pragmatic decision. People who have jumped through the hoops to become admins are by and large more experienced and thoughtful people, so when you want to get something done, you're more likely to get it done if you ask an admin.
It comes down to the same thing though. Maybe if I dress up as an admin, I will look more "experienced and thoughtful". I thought there was a conscious effort to avoid ascribing any kind of prestige to adminship.
Anyway.
Steve
On 1/25/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Trusted editors == admins? Should I feel vaguely insulted?
Admins == trusted editors (well, admins *should* == trusted editors), but trusted editors > admins.
-- Sam
On 1/25/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Trusted editors == admins? Should I feel vaguely insulted?
Admins == trusted editors (well, admins *should* == trusted editors), but trusted editors > admins.
-- Sam
Actually it's really more like <math>Admins \subset Trusted Editors</math>, or, if you really, really want to use natural numbers |Admins| < |Trusted Users|
I'm sorry, I just had to :P
--Oskar Sigvardsson
On 1/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Admins == trusted editors (well, admins *should* == trusted editors), but trusted editors > admins.
Actually it's really more like <math>Admins \subset Trusted Editors</math>, or, if you really, really want to use natural numbers |Admins| < |Trusted Users|
I'm sorry, I just had to :P
Sam Korn =/= Mathematician
However you write it. :-)
-- Sam