[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

[Guettarda]

On 2/9/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> geni wrote:
> > On 2/9/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Well, in your last point you're wrong. I'm one of those "paper admins"
> >> that you seem to hate so much.
> >>
> >
> > How does the whitelist work?
> >
> >> As far as "hitting users who stay just below the level of blocking with
> >> 1 second blocks", it sounds to me like "gaming the system".
> >
> > I would regard it as protecting the system from itself. Legal fictions
> > have a long and sometime honorable history.
> >
> >> What is your *real* objection to this suggestion, Geni? You seem to
> >> simultaneously complaining about any added work, and bashing good faith
> >> suggestions for improving the situation.
> >>
> >> -Rich
> >
> > Good faith does not mean correct. My experience is that most people
> > most of the time act in good faith. Left to themselves humans tend to
> > do so. No I am not claiming the idea was made in anything other than
> > good faith. It could be argued that the first sentence of that
> > paragraph assumed bad faith but perhaps it is better read as a request
> > for clarification.
> >
> >
> > But I do claim it was flawed. Lets look at the benefits yes? Maybe 10
> > active admins. Maybe.
> >
> > Downsides:
> >
> > 100 admins who don't really know policy. Sure we have a load that
> > applies to at the moment but at least in their case we know they once
> > did.
> >
> > 100 admins I can't trust (that is what probation means). Sure there
> > are a handful I can't trust right now (whoever is behind wikitruth)
> > but that is a problem I would rather not see grow.
> >
> > Greater ease for someone with an agenda to get admin powers.
> > Astroturfers, Scientologists, probably various political agents
> >
> > Greater ease for trolls perhaps whoever it was who was hitting the
> > main page a while back.
> >
> > I don't know if you read SEO forums much but text generation systems
> > are getting quite good. How certain are you that you can pick up 100%
> > of them within 150 edits? Heck write a wikification bot and even fewer
> > will be picked up.
> >
> > The risks outweigh the benefits.
> >
>
> Geni,
>
> You're welcome to your opinions, and I appreciate your more thought-out
> response. However, I do believe that you're missing the largest benefit
> of the proposal: the de-politicizing of RfA. The de-emphasizing of the
> status of being an admin. Perhaps you don't see these a benefits.


Is the benefit worth the trouble of a dozen vandalbots with admin powers?
Is it worth the benefit of trying to undo some of the far worse things an
admin can do... (I won't give examples, per BEANS, but I'm sure you could
come up with some pretty awful things)

It seems to me that one hazard for an admin who if heavily involved is a
> sort of "messiah complex" -- the belief that without them (or in this
> case, others like them) the project will fail.
>
> As others have pointed out, Wikipedia is built on a premise that open
> editing can produce a quality encyclopedia. This is a premise that many
> (most?) traditional encyclopedia editors can't believe will work,
> because they passionately believe that without people like them, it
> cannot possibly work.
>
> So I ask you to think carefully about your own motives and beliefs about
> admins on Wikipedia. No one else knows what those are.
>
> It's very possible that my proposed experiment has real problems and is
> unworkable. But, may I suggest that you offer alternate suggestions for
> improvements, instead of just criticizing those of others?
>
> -Rich
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>