MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 3/6/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
I'm sick and tired of people misunderstanding
what an "administrator"
of Wikipedia is. It was a misnomer to begin with, and we've had
nothing but trouble with this name ever since. Users misunderstand it
(and ask admins to make editorial decisions). Media misunderstand it
(and either do not explain it, or connect it to power and influence).
And it's no wonder. "Administrator" could refer to a manager, or
someone appointed by a court; it typically describes someone in an
important official position.
People who ask admins/sysops to make editorial decisions are simply unaware
of their role. Instead of causing loads of work by renaming the position, it
would IMO be more effective to educate the others. People who make editorial
decisions about writing are usually called editors. Should we rename that
term too?
The name change process should not be a problem, as it would happen
gradually. Admins did used to be called sysops, and that term has not
completely died out. Applying to be a jamitor could be renamed "Request
for Brooms".
Also, the fact people misunderstand is partly caused by
admins messing up.
We shouldn't be afraid to keep an eye on each other's work and make sure
fellow admins follow the rules.
Absolutely. But it's not just simple messing up. Defending the mess-up
can be a bigger problem.
When the role of "bureaucrat" was created,
the name was chosen
specifically so that people would not treat it as
a status symbol. It
should be something nobody really _wants_ -- something people do
because it needs doing, not because it gains them credibility and
influence. This seems to have worked reasonably well for the most
part.
Seeing as how the word "bureaucrat" appears to be connected with
"bureaucracy" I can't see how it could have been carefully chosen.
Quite the contrary. The selection was done somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Ec