Thomas Dalton wrote:
I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work, allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to work.
I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody editing is impossible.
I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the case.
Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have managed to make a viable website.
Well, actually, I don't think that was my point. My point was about the right attitude to risk.
I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as a "pure wiki" in the way that you describe it. Ward, after all, had root and wasn't afraid to use it; he's a pretty pragmatic guy. Regardless, that sort of idealistic purity is not something I've argued for or am arguing for here.
Just to be clear, I agree that having some number of trusted people with some limited set of special powers is probably necessary. And I agree that some of the various proposals are unlikely to work as offered. But I'm not particularly focused on any of them.
My point is that the particular solution we have now is unlikely to be the right one for the next couple of hundred years, and I don't think it's even a great one for the next year. Given the necessity of change, I'm concerned about attitudes and arguments that seem to apply more or less equally against any sort of innovation.
Maybe that's not how you're intending to come across. However, in describing Wikipedia as a "well-established institution", in claiming "our aim is to reduce risk to the minimum possible," and arguing against proposed changes without offering alternatives or constructive criticism, that's the impression I'm getting.
There have been multiple requests for evidence that opening up adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.
I think that's evidence that getting rid of admins won't work. I agree, and I don't think anybody is advocating that. But it's not proof that opening up adminship to any degree along the spectrum won't work.
Did you happen to see this bit on semi-protection?
http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/17/the-new-york-times-...
I think this is the right spirit to bring to these discussions on administrative power, not just editing power. If we're looking for a direction to move in, I think the default bias should be to seek more openness, and that we should move in more closed directions only with reluctance and a sense of (hopefully temporary) defeat.
William