On 3/7/07, 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.
It's true that "admin" is a bad name for the role. However, it's also true that it's a bad role, which blends all kinds of different priveleges together. For example, allowing admins to edit protected pages (a content role), banning people (a policing role), editing mediawiki pages (development) and viewing deleted pages (purely an issue of trust).
So, yes, by all means, rename, but to what? "Housekeeper" is good, but why can a housekeeper ban people? "Sysop" is ok, but why does a sysop get to choose which version of a page to keep in a content dispute? Since when do "janitors" tinker with system-wide JavaScript?
Steve