[WikiEN-l] Admins and elitism

[geni]

On 2/13/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase
> in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not
> now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
>

We already have it.

> It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of
> admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so)
>   have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal".
> They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
>

Don't try and blame it on the new admins. It is nothing new.

> As I understand things, these admins view themselves as the
> indispensable shield between Wikipedia and the world, which is full of
> devious and persistent vandals. Without them (the admins), Wikipedia
> would fail utterly. Essentially, they carry the weight of the survival
> of Wikipedia on their shoulders.
>

It is true that admins as a group are the thin nerdy line between
Wikipedia and the less pleasant parts of the net.

> Each new admin, having just gone through a "rigorous" application and
> approval process, has essentially been selected for taking this sort of
> view. And each new admin has every good reason for maintaining or
> increasing the requirements for successive admins. In this respect, it
> becomes very like the process of hazing found in many clubs and
> exclusive organizations). This trend toward ever more "rigorous"
> requirements has led to cases of hazing on some US university campuses
> that were so severe the "applicant" died as a result.
>

Not so much. See the problem with increasing standards is it means
future admins will be better than you are and you end up looking at
massive backlogs. There is enough work to go around.

and in [[user:Llama man]]'s RFA less than 40% of those !voteing are admins.

> Of course, the admins point to the very real challenges that vandals
> pose as the reason for the rigor of the application process. They reject
> any proposal that might place Wikipedia is peril.
>

Of course. Admins tend to play things safe. There would be serious
objections if we did otherwise.

> Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special
> rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of
> how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to
> perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will
> happen towards solving the problem.
>

Look at the talk archives of [[WP:RFA]].

-- 
geni