[Foundation-l] models for adminship/wiki leadership

GerardM gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Tue Apr 10 09:19:35 UTC 2007

On OmegaWiki people that can edit are typically also admin. This had a big
effect on vandalism .. It is also understood that as easy as it is given, it
can also be taken away.  This has so far not happened. For OmegaWiki it is
understood that it is the editing and not the sysop status that is of most

We have been happy with the people that came to OmegaWiki, they have been
good to us. The good thing about not having elections is that many of the
arguments that are more belief that fact do not play a role; when someone is
a known good, inactivity does not make him bad. There is no such thing as
"too many admins" or of a cabal. When we know people to do good, we trust
them with the limited functionality that the "buttons" bring.

One big difference in OmegaWiki is that people do not necessarily understand
each other; they do not need to speak the same language. This is a function
of the fact that our data can be presented in many languages. The result is
that it is not necessarily true that it is easy to judge if someone is doing
good work; I regularly ask people about contributions that seem problematic;
it is not feasible to appreciate all details of all languages consequently
we HAVE to trust people anyway. Trusting people to do well is an article of
faith in wikis. In OmegaWiki only more so.

You would also want for the Commons project to be truly multi lingual
because Commons is NOT necessarily an English language project. This would
mean that some basic assumptions have to be revisited. It will be
interesting to see if people have the ability and willingness to do that.


On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/04/07, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol at gmail.com> wrote:
> And who in
> > their right mind is going to go through a process that not rarely is
> used to
> > rehash old conflicts and "roast" candidates for everything they've done
> > wrong at some time, for one or two weeks? The more selective a process
> is,
> > the more valuable is its outcome.
> Right!!!! That's exactly what I'm talking about. How can it be
> avoided? Would creating an alternative path to recognition make RfA a
> less sour process?
> cheers,
> Brianna
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list