Well, the legal threats turned out to be BS, so I'm back. And rightfully so.
In response to the attacks against my "limited admin" idea, I would like to defend my position.
The "demisysop" status (as I have taken the liberty of calling it) would be much like the sysop status. It would be subject to much of the restrictions of sysop; you would have to demonstrate acumen and have responsibility, NPOV, understanding of policy, etc.
So nobody's going to get something they don't deserve. And nobody will be deprived.
The point of this status is so that excellent EDITORS (not vandalfighters, arbitrators, etc) would be able to have special tools that would allow them to easily edit. The problem is that there are two different fields of Wikipedia work: Editing and maintenance. Editing is the general writing and improvement of articles, citing, cleanup, categorisation, etc. Maintenance is the vandalfighting, blocking, arbitrating, mediating, and policy that provides the framework for the wiki.
Sysop tools are designed for maintenance, and too often, the mop is awarded or declined based on editing.
The "writer" class would solve that.
--------------------------------- We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
On 2/15/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
The point of this status is so that excellent EDITORS (not vandalfighters, arbitrators, etc) would be able to have special tools that would allow them to easily edit.
...
The problem is that there are two different fields of Wikipedia work: Editing and maintenance. Editing is the general writing and improvement of articles, citing, cleanup, categorisation, etc...
None of which require an admin bit.
On 2/14/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
I propose that for the "editor" status (my proposal for a user right between user and sysop), one would have the capabilities to edit protected articles, view deleted revisions, and generally view admin-olny things (but not actually perform sysop actions per se). And they might have a toolbar that would allow them to nominate these things...
No. Protected articles and deleted articles are protected and deleted for a reason: for example, articles are most often protected to end edit wars; even admins are discouraged from editing protected articles in any nontrivial ways, so I see no reason that certain privileged editors should be allowed to ignore protection. For simple protection against vandalism, we already have semiprotection and blocking. Deleted revisions are similar: they're deleted because they shouldn't be visible. (Articles which are entirely deleted are a special case. But most admins will send you a copy of a deleted article, or undelete one to your userspace, if you ask nicely.)
So there's no good reason I see for *editors* to be given any tools beyond what they've already got. If they need some help with maintenance work (as you put it), that's another story - but simple editing is already available to everyone.
zetawoof zetawoof@gmail.com writes:
No. Protected articles and deleted articles are protected and deleted for a reason: for example, articles are most often protected to end edit wars; even admins are discouraged from editing protected articles in any nontrivial ways, so I see no reason that certain privileged editors should be allowed to ignore protection. For simple protection against vandalism, we already have semiprotection and blocking. Deleted revisions are similar: they're deleted because they shouldn't be visible. (Articles which are entirely deleted are a special case. But most admins will send you a copy of a deleted article, or undelete one to your userspace, if you ask nicely.)
So there's no good reason I see for *editors* to be given any tools beyond what they've already got. If they need some help with maintenance work (as you put it), that's another story - but simple editing is already available to everyone.
But why not give semiprotection to some subset of editors? They're the ones closest to the articles, it's not nearly so important and serious as full protection, and it's not like there are any rules against editing a semi-protected page. We've already given Undo, a weak form of rollbacks, to editors, so there's precedent. Besides, it seems to me that semi-protection is more of an editing tool than something that's clearly an admin tool.
On 2/16/07, zetawoof zetawoof@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that there are two different fields of Wikipedia work: Editing and maintenance. Editing is the general writing and improvement of articles, citing, cleanup, categorisation, etc...
None of which require an admin bit.
Categorisation is easier with an admin bit: you can rename and delete categories. Cleanup is easier with an admin bit: you can speedy delete bad articles. Improvement of articles may be easier with an admin bit: you can rename all articles, merge histories and so forth.
Steve
zetawoof wrote:
On 2/15/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
The point of this status is so that excellent EDITORS (not vandalfighters, arbitrators, etc) would be able to have special tools that would allow them to easily edit.
...
The problem is that there are two different fields of Wikipedia work: Editing and maintenance. Editing is the general writing and improvement of articles, citing, cleanup, categorisation, etc...
None of which require an admin bit.
On 2/14/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
I propose that for the "editor" status (my proposal for a user right between user and sysop), one would have the capabilities to edit protected articles, view deleted revisions, and generally view admin-olny things (but not actually perform sysop actions per se). And they might have a toolbar that would allow them to nominate these things...
No. Protected articles and deleted articles are protected and deleted for a reason: for example, articles are most often protected to end edit wars; even admins are discouraged from editing protected articles in any nontrivial ways, so I see no reason that certain privileged editors should be allowed to ignore protection. For simple protection against vandalism, we already have semiprotection and blocking. Deleted revisions are similar: they're deleted because they shouldn't be visible. (Articles which are entirely deleted are a special case. But most admins will send you a copy of a deleted article, or undelete one to your userspace, if you ask nicely.)
So there's no good reason I see for *editors* to be given any tools beyond what they've already got. If they need some help with maintenance work (as you put it), that's another story - but simple editing is already available to everyone.
I don't think that "this user doesn't need the tools" is ever a valid reason to deny adminship. Trust is a valid criteria. Need is not.
-Rich
I don't think that "this user doesn't need the tools" is ever a valid reason to deny adminship. Trust is a valid criteria. Need is not.
It's the risk/reward thing again. Giving someone the admin bit is taking a risk, for that risk to be worth it we need to have a reasonable expectation that they'll do something useful with it.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think that "this user doesn't need the tools" is ever a valid reason to deny adminship. Trust is a valid criteria. Need is not.
It's the risk/reward thing again. Giving someone the admin bit is taking a risk, for that risk to be worth it we need to have a reasonable expectation that they'll do something useful with it.
Then why do we allow people to edit articles at all. Under strict risk/reward analysis, that was the wrong thing to do. Yet by doing the "wrong thing" we have created something quite significant. In my opinion, your assessment of risk/reward is more appropriate to a well-established institution than to a cutting-edge web project.
-Rich
Then why do we allow people to edit articles at all. Under strict risk/reward analysis, that was the wrong thing to do. Yet by doing the "wrong thing" we have created something quite significant. In my opinion, your assessment of risk/reward is more appropriate to a well-established institution than to a cutting-edge web project.
In what way was it the wrong thing to do? The gain from allowing everyone to edit is enormous. The risk is significant, but manageable.
All decisions should be made by comparing the risk and the reward. The difference between a well-established institution and a cutting-edge web project is simply one of degree - we are willing to take more risk to get the same gain, but no unlimited risk. We still have to balance it.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Then why do we allow people to edit articles at all. Under strict risk/reward analysis, that was the wrong thing to do. Yet by doing the "wrong thing" we have created something quite significant. In my opinion, your assessment of risk/reward is more appropriate to a well-established institution than to a cutting-edge web project.
In what way was it the wrong thing to do? The gain from allowing everyone to edit is enormous. The risk is significant, but manageable.
I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work, allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to work.
I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody editing is impossible.
All decisions should be made by comparing the risk and the reward. The difference between a well-established institution and a cutting-edge web project is simply one of degree - we are willing to take more risk to get the same gain, but no unlimited risk. We still have to balance it.
And I think that's the difference in perspective. Is Wikipedia a well-established institution? Or a cutting-edge web project?
The other day, I went to a BayCHI presentation by the folks at NetFlix. They are several years older than Wikipedia, their model is much clearer, and as a publicly traded company with a half-billion dollars in revenue, they face at least as much scrutiny. You would think that would put them more toward the well-established end of the spectrum.
However, they're continuously and aggressively experimenting. They view what they've done so far as a beginning, not an end. They act as a cutting-edge web project does.
Personally, I think that's the right attitude for Wikipedia as well. Six years is a fantastic start, but against the 236 years that Britannica's made it, it's not much at all. I'd like Wikipedia to have the same run.
William
I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work, allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to work.
I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody editing is impossible.
I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the case.
Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have managed to make a viable website.
Wikipedia is not a pure wiki, it's the closest we've managed to stay to a wiki without causing problems that are beyond our ability to manage. We've managed to stay very close, but we have had to step away in order to solve a few problems. Adminship is the main way we've done that.
The proposal for opening up adminship is basically a proposal to move back to a pure wiki. Wikipedia started off as a pure wiki, and it worked ok at first, but as it grew it get unmanageable and required the creation of admins.
There have been multiple requests for evidence that opening up adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work, allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to work.
I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody editing is impossible.
I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the case.
Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have managed to make a viable website.
Wikipedia is not a pure wiki, it's the closest we've managed to stay to a wiki without causing problems that are beyond our ability to manage. We've managed to stay very close, but we have had to step away in order to solve a few problems. Adminship is the main way we've done that.
The proposal for opening up adminship is basically a proposal to move back to a pure wiki. Wikipedia started off as a pure wiki, and it worked ok at first, but as it grew it get unmanageable and required the creation of admins.
There have been multiple requests for evidence that opening up adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.
I thought *this* discussion was about whether need was a factor in giving people admin status. I've said that the only real issue is trust. What I understand you to have said was that even if we trust someone, if they don't *need* admin status, we should not give it to them.
Have I misunderstood somewhere?
-Rich
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work, allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to work.
I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody editing is impossible.
I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the case.
Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have managed to make a viable website.
Well, actually, I don't think that was my point. My point was about the right attitude to risk.
I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as a "pure wiki" in the way that you describe it. Ward, after all, had root and wasn't afraid to use it; he's a pretty pragmatic guy. Regardless, that sort of idealistic purity is not something I've argued for or am arguing for here.
Just to be clear, I agree that having some number of trusted people with some limited set of special powers is probably necessary. And I agree that some of the various proposals are unlikely to work as offered. But I'm not particularly focused on any of them.
My point is that the particular solution we have now is unlikely to be the right one for the next couple of hundred years, and I don't think it's even a great one for the next year. Given the necessity of change, I'm concerned about attitudes and arguments that seem to apply more or less equally against any sort of innovation.
Maybe that's not how you're intending to come across. However, in describing Wikipedia as a "well-established institution", in claiming "our aim is to reduce risk to the minimum possible," and arguing against proposed changes without offering alternatives or constructive criticism, that's the impression I'm getting.
There have been multiple requests for evidence that opening up adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.
I think that's evidence that getting rid of admins won't work. I agree, and I don't think anybody is advocating that. But it's not proof that opening up adminship to any degree along the spectrum won't work.
Did you happen to see this bit on semi-protection?
http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/17/the-new-york-times-...
I think this is the right spirit to bring to these discussions on administrative power, not just editing power. If we're looking for a direction to move in, I think the default bias should be to seek more openness, and that we should move in more closed directions only with reluctance and a sense of (hopefully temporary) defeat.
William
William Pietri wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work, allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to work.
I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody editing is impossible.
I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the case.
Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have managed to make a viable website.
Well, actually, I don't think that was my point. My point was about the right attitude to risk.
Risk is a part of life. Some youth take on risks that would make grown-ups say, "Are you crazy?" Maybe too that's why they are so well suited to be soldiers; an older person knows better than to put himself in harm's way. The Cult of Certainty would have us believe that with enough order andt stucture, with enough insurance, and blame, and revenge everything can be put right.
I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as a "pure wiki" in the way that you describe it. Ward, after all, had root and wasn't afraid to use it; he's a pretty pragmatic guy. Regardless, that sort of idealistic purity is not something I've argued for or am arguing for here.
In Frankfurt I had the pleasure of sitting with Ward Cunningham and Sunir Shah for a couple of hours of good German beer. I might as well have been a fly on the wall. The tone of that exchange was consistent with what you say now.
Just to be clear, I agree that having some number of trusted people with some limited set of special powers is probably necessary. And I agree that some of the various proposals are unlikely to work as offered. But I'm not particularly focused on any of them.
Again yes. We also need to remember that no trust is absolute. Leaders of countries have been revered until they achieved power and betrayed that trust. Consistently bad behaviour may be a strong indicator of how a person may act in the future, but good behaviour is not a good indicator of how that person will respond to stress.
My point is that the particular solution we have now is unlikely to be the right one for the next couple of hundred years, and I don't think it's even a great one for the next year. Given the necessity of change, I'm concerned about attitudes and arguments that seem to apply more or less equally against any sort of innovation.
Maybe that's not how you're intending to come across. However, in describing Wikipedia as a "well-established institution", in claiming "our aim is to reduce risk to the minimum possible," and arguing against proposed changes without offering alternatives or constructive criticism, that's the impression I'm getting.
With enough rules and restraint any leading-edge project can regress into becoming a well-established institution. Today happens to be the fifth anniversary of my first official edit. During that time there have been changes, and not all for the good. The worst ones seem to be directed at maintaining some kind of reputation, or confronting a fear that the whole project will fall apart if there is not enough order. There are bad things that absolutely need to be cleaned up, but we don't need such a broad brush to do that.
There have been multiple requests for evidence that opening up adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.
I think that's evidence that getting rid of admins won't work. I agree, and I don't think anybody is advocating that. But it's not proof that opening up adminship to any degree along the spectrum won't work.
Did you happen to see this bit on semi-protection?
http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/17/the-new-york-times-...
I think this is the right spirit to bring to these discussions on administrative power, not just editing power. If we're looking for a direction to move in, I think the default bias should be to seek more openness, and that we should move in more closed directions only with reluctance and a sense of (hopefully temporary) defeat.
It strikes me that there is a direct parallel between this and events in the real world. Fear, whether founded or not, is a great motivator. When we start restricting freedoms in the name of terrorists who would allegedly destroy our way of life we, and not the terrorists are destroying our way of life.
Ec