[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

[Deathphoenix]

Yes, as long as we get the "no big deal" message across (like we have been
since the inception of Wikipedia) and admins have no greater power than,
blah blah blah, all we really need to do is prevent the bad admins from
getting it. Almost all actions that admins take are reversible anyway, all
we need is an RfA that ensures that the mediocre admins can still get the
bit while we can successfully "fail" the bad admins. I don't even bother
checking RFA anymore, it's almost as painful reading through all the
questions as it is to actually vote, I know I'd think thrice before
accepting an RFA nomination if I were to get it in this day and age.

On 2/9/07, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>>How does the Community define a "quality admin"?
> >
> >>Why do you need such a definition?
> >
> > I would think for the same reason that, before you decide something is
> > substandard, you would first need to define what the standard is.
>
> Hm, this sounds like you didn't read the rest of my posting, but maybe I
> didn't make it clear enough, so I'll try again.
>
> I believe that current Wikipedia practices implement the following
> mindset:
>
> You don't need to define what constitutes a "good quality" editor
> because the "medium quality" editors can edit just as much as the "good
> quality" editors. You only need to define "bad quality" editors because
> those are the ones you need to find in order to block them from editing.
> "Bad quality" can be determined on the basis of specific incidents (e.g.
> continued vandalism).
>
> Similarly, I am advocating that the same should apply to admins:
>
> You don't need to define "good quality" in this case because the "medium
> quality" admins can stay just as much as the "good quality" admins. You
> only need to define "bad quality" admins because those are the ones you
> need to find in order to demote them. "Bad quality" can be determined on
> the basis of specific incidents (e.g. continued disruptance).
>
> Why do we allow everyone to edit even though people vandalise pages all
> the time? Of course, it's because the constructive edits from passers-by
> outweigh the work required to clean up after vandals. The RfA system is
> analogous to having all users blocked by default and requiring them to
> apply for editing privileges first. Then you'd get people voting
> "oppose" because the user makes spelling mistakes in their blog or
> something, thereby missing out on potentially useful contributions like
> uploading selfmade pictures or organising categories.
>
> Wikipedia claims to have a system in place that finds "good quality" (or
> at least "good enough quality") admins -- it's called RfA. What I'm
> saying now is that this search for "good enough quality" admins is
> misguided because the ones you need to identify are the "bad quality"
> ones. Although the current system makes it difficult for a genuinely
> bad-quality user to become admin, it also misses out on "good enough
> quality" admins because of specious criteria like "not enough edits".
> This way (potentially) hundreds of users are prevented from helping
> constructively.
>
> Timwi
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>