[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[K P]

On 2/19/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Jossi Fresco wrote:
>
> >On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that
> >>admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not
> >>the
> >>kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We
> >>need to
> >>have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just
> >>like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a
> >>vandal
> >>causes.
> >>
> >>
> >Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering"
> >and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
> >
> If that's the case why are the exceptional cases dominating the
> conversation?  Are the admins so powerless that they can't control their
> renegades?
>
> Ec


No!  They're not so powerless.  However, it's strongly to their disadvantage
to do anything to control their renegades.  Because .... adminship is such a
damned big deal, no one who ever got it would ever risk losing it, and
anyone losing it, increases the chances of scrutiny in too many ways on
others who hold the power--any time any administrator loses the tools,
editors notice they're not infallible, editors may question other
administrators.

Adminship is not in practice what it was intended, I think, to be.  I don't
think it was intended to be a big deal.  I don't think it was intended to be
a position of power so much as an additional set of duties that certain
dedicated users could control.  But I think it warped into a big deal power
play.  And human beings have shown through history that they will do
anything, up to and including destroying their own power
base/country/mission to keep their personal power.

They're not so powerless that they can't control them, they're so powerful
that they won't control them for fear of their own power being curtailed.

Also there's no purpose in discussing the non-exceptional cases.  There are
plenty of administrators who do a great job. Plenty of editors, too, who
crawl around on the fringes doing a great job with articles--hopefully
someone gives them a barnstar.  This is the best part of Wikipedia: the
anybodies who are doing great work.  But I don't think Wikipedia overall is
maintaining a welcoming atmosphere for the potentially huge variety of
people needed to reach its ultimate goal, and part of the problem is, imo,
the insufferable poweropoly of adminship.  It's designed to not foster
self-reflection.

KP