[WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

[John Lee]

On 3/6/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> > Why don't we do the same thing with administrators? No need to do a
> > global search & replace, just change the key pages and MediaWiki
> > messages and leave old mentions of "adminship" on talk pages and such
> > around. But change it to something like "janitor". Or at least
> > something less formidable than "administrator", like "trusted user."
>
> The problem isn't what we call them, it's what the worst of them do.  We
> can't keep renaming things or trying to figure out a better way to
> identify people if it doesn't get to the root of the problem.
>
> Seriously.  This has probably been the worst 4-6 weeks I've seen on this
> site since I started contributing, both on a personal and a social
> level.  I don't care to contribute anymore due to the culture, people
> are dropping the site left and right (admin Doug Bell is on a wikibreak
> now because of the Essjay situation (not that he's part of the
> solution), Doc glasgow's scaled back considerably following the
> Essjay/Peppers fiascos, Alkivar's gone, a number of lower level users
> are giving up, who knows who else that I DON'T know about).  And why?
> Because whatever you want to call them can't do their simple jobs
> properly (and who cares if they volunteer or not - if you can't do it
> right, don't do it), it gets nasty when they get called out on it,
> WP:IAR is being embraced like never before, causing massive internal
> strife, and ArbCom's only called upon to do something about it when
> there's a wheel war, ignoring the other issues.
>
> I'm not sure how much more can be taken.  We're at a record level of
> contributing and of attention, and it feels like the damn project is
> imploding.  It needs to be fixed, and it needs a massive cleansing, not
> some cosmetic "hey, let's change the names of who runs the site" nonsense.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> --
> Name: Jeff Raymond
> E-mail: jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com
> WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
> IM: badlydrawnjeff
> Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the
>         Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else."
>         - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq.


I don't know how much of this is a warranted reaction and how much is an
overreaction. I would definitely agree that there are major problems with
our culture when it comes to meta/policy issues, because those involved with
this backend crap burn out so damn easily - but then again, it's difficult
to imagine many backbreaking backend jobs in any organisation where people
wouldn't burn out easily. Still, the way we handle things in this area isn't
helping.

At the same time, I think it's important to recall that WP is about the
encyclopaedia, and that all else is peripheral. Vandal-fighters, RC
patrollers, mass deleters, etc. come and go, but as long as there is a new
supply of eager young admins to step into the breach (and there's no reason
to foresee a lack of such poor bright-eyed young 'uns in the near or medium
future), a high turnover rate would not be very distressing. What would be
more distressing is a high turnover rate of article editors, since those are
most important.

I don't see the need to get all worked up about this crap related to meta
policy. I learnt a long time ago that it's not worthwhile obsessing about
this stuff. The only time I deal with any process at all these days is when
I want to get an article to FA status, and even then, I can't be arsed to do
the work required anymore. Minor tinkering at the edges is less stressful,
more fun, and even in the end, it adds up to a substantial amount. Working
on the encyclopaedia and doing any odd jobs as you stumble on them through
your wiki-ing travails/travels is much more fun and almost as helpful as
focusing single-mindedly on trying to push through some massive but in the
long run pointless policy change.

I mean, just look at all the crap some of our best minds once devoted
themselves to. The inane problem of userboxes. All the hot air about that
Siegenthaler issue. All the fuss about attempting to delete some random meta
pages that some people have a problem with, whether they're titled
[[WP:SNOW]] or [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay]].

To me, in the long run, this ain't worth two turds. The work we do on WP
that will still matter in one year, two years, or ten years, will not be a
snarky comment left on a talk page or a massive rebuttal to someone who is
obviously in the wrong but just won't listen. The work that matters is the
encyclopaedia.

You can argue that the meta stuff we do is essential to the encyclopaedia in
the long run. But honestly, it doesn't matter to me whether we merge
[[WP:V]] with [[WP:ATT]] or we delete some stupid RfC about a departed user,
because I'll still be working on the encyclopaedia even if these things
happen. And so will many others.

It's true that some meta-side stuff is inevitable. But what I'm saying is we
can't let it distract us from the encyclopaedia, and I'd say the
encyclopaedia's doing pretty darn well.

I'm not sure what else has happened in the past month or so that's so
terrible, besides this uproar about Essjay and the usual wheel warring that
seems to be ingrained in WP culture now. What I am sure of is that most
editors aren't really aware of these issues, and that these things haven't
affected them one bit.

I've seen a lot of people come and go in my time here. Mentioning the
departure of people like Doc glasgow or Alkivar - that doesn't surprise me
one bit (especially since these same people have left and returned in the
past, IIRC). If anything, the past month seems to have been par for the
course for WP.

Of course, that isn't an argument against raising the par (although if we
want to literally apply golfing terms, I think the correct word would be
lowering). But let's keep some perspective. Getting worked up over this
stuff isn't going to be of much worth in the long run. We, and the project,
will move on.

Johnleemk