MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 3/6/07, Erik Moeller erik@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