On 03/03/11 5:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
2011/3/3 Samuel Klein<meta.sj(a)gmail.com>om>:
Amir writes:
Now i, in general, think that these permissions
should be given
liberally to as many reasonable Wikimedians as possible.
<snip>
In fact it's quite likely that communities
will want to give as little
permissions as possible to users.
Can you explain the apparent paradox above?
It's not a paradox: I think that they should be given liberally, but
many community members may think otherwise. It's not very logical, but
in all languages that i can read there are many discussions about it,
full of confusions and suspicions. I believe that the name
"administrator" is one of the main reasons for this and that's why i
suggest retiring it completely.
The name "administrator" gives the impression of some mythical
"balance of power", although administrators don't actually
administrate - they (un)delete, (un)block and (un)protect, in addition
to editing articles and participating in discussions just like
everybody else. The name "sysop" (system operator), used occasionally
in English, and more frequently in some other languages (e.g. Hebrew),
sounds less like a managerial role, but it's technical and cryptic and
requires explanation.
Giving user groups exact and real names will likely change the
attitude of many users who see these user groups as "the powers that
be" and think that they're impenetrable.
You make a strong point. People cherish their titles and the
self-esteem. Being able to say "I am a Wikipedia administrator," to
someone who has never edited Wikipedia gives an impression of
importance. Breaking the task into its components leaves each part less
prestigious. Saying that someone has "deletion privileges" instead of
being a "deleter" disperses the sense of status. The way something is
said can make a difference. Perhaps something as small as changing RfA
to RfAP (Request for Administra*tion* Privileges) could have an effect
by shifting the emphasis to privileges.
There are huge flaws in the decision making process. The process of
proposal, considered favorable response, overwhelming negative vote is
common. It repeats itself, and that too becomes a part of the problem.
There are always enough individuals to feel that their immediate rights
or prospective rights are threatened to come out and give a sufficient
vote to kill any reform proposal. Those of us who would want a more
liberal and more flexible policy framework have become jaded. We see the
pattern repeat itself, and can no longer be bothered when it comes up
again ... if we haven't left Wikipedia altogether. We don't want to
wade through the entire Encyclopedia of Witlessness before showing our
support for a good reform proposal. A single paragraph of explanation
should be enough. But even more, when we have heard the arguments so
often, and have seen so many votes, we have no way of knowing that an
important vote is happening. The reformers need to make a better effort
of canvassing their support.
Ray