[WikiEN-l] Worthy admins? (was "The userbox fad")

[charles matthews]

"jayjg" wrote

> I think the problem is
that we are creating administrators who are not part of the community, not
familiar with its policies and norms, and not particularly interested in
Wikipedia's goals.

The first point is how older generations always talk, of course.  I.e. it is 
the postulation of a 'generation gap'.

Second point might be factually true.  How many of us would like to take an 
exam on policy?  Is it any longer possible to be familiar with enough of the 
key policy pages?  Why is there no 'Dummies' guide?  (Well, maybe there is 
and I just don't come across it.)  Norms - well, yes, community norms are 
what actually matter.

Not interested in WP's goals.  Possible, though I wonder just how many 
people are interested in my current goals (this week, 1911 EB reference 
wikification and blue-linking, sort out and develop William Blake mythology, 
[[Category:Category theory]]).

There is a kind of progression: encourage people to have user accounts when 
they were happy as IPs; user pages too tribal or full of 'This Wikipedian 
drinks coffee' user boxes; RfA votes for people with too high a proportion 
of edits on User Talk pages, or vandal chasing, and not enough good 
name-space edits.

We have to live with all of this, by the way.  Admin status is the major 
form of recognition open to everyone that means something (barnstars have 
long been debased currency, Featured Articles I can no longer be bothered 
with, as slanted to certain kinds of writing.)

Potential solutions:

- Stop talking about a gap in terms that can only accentuate it
- Do something about a policy guide for non-veterans
- New recognition mechanisms, raise the bar for admin creation for 
newcomers, more active research of committed content-oriented RfA candidates 
from those who quietly get on with it.

Charles