[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than "no big deal" and that's poisonous

[Skyring]

On 6/21/05, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
 
> As far as I remember, three users have been desysopped. It is a big
> thing - and it so it should be, which is why it's dealt with the way
> it is now. Our admins are generally our contributors that have been
> here the longest and in almost all cases, have put in tireless amounts
> of work to improve the encyclopedia (and anyone who isn't an admin,
> unless they either don't want to be an admin, or are in some way a
> dick, should be one in the future with a few more contributions).

There's a problem right there. Not every editor has the same set of
wants and needs. Just because someone is a good editor doesn't mean
that they will be a good admin.

You've outlined adminship as something like having a driver's licence
- everyone should be able to get one once they are off their Learner's
Permit - when to my mind it should be something more like becoming a
Justice of the Peace or a police constable.

Look at the way you've defined entry and exit paths. Easy to get in
and hard to get out. There's an imbalance in the process.

I'm not just flapping my keyboard here. I'm one of a very small number
of "admins" in a web community of a size comparable to Wikipedia, and
I've been given the task of creating a class of special users, who
will have privileges and recognition beyond that of the average
member. Given the nature of the tasks they will have to do, the
selection process is crucial, and I'm wondering how to go about it. Do
I set an arbitrary bar of membership time and number of actions
performed, or do I make it a matter of having those "in the know"
selecting "people like us"?

The example of Wikipedia is before me, and I'm trying to find out out
what works and what mistakes to avoid.

-- 
Peter in Canberra