[WikiEN-l] Who monitors Wikipedia?

[Screamer]

Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> On Sunday 02 March 2008 20:27, Chris Howie wrote:
>   
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
>>     
>>>  I've suggested something similar in the past:
>>>  For their initial confirmation, administrators are required to reach a
>>>  certain, objectively-defined and absolute threshold of votes (not
>>>  a "discussion", not "consensus", but an outright vote), discounting
>>> SPAs, socks, and maybe a few others.  A week after their confirmation
>>> process begins, if they meet that criteria they are admins.
>>>
>>>  From then on out, they must maintain that support.  A page is maintained
>>> for each administrator.  It begins with the original confirmation
>>> request, and from that individual users may add or withdraw their support
>>> for that administrator as they see fit.  Once a week, on the same day as
>>> the admin was initially confirmed, someone checks to see if they still
>>> meet that threshold. If they fall below the threshold for two consecutive
>>> weeks, they are de-adminned (requiring two consecutive weeks rather than
>>> just a single week helps give admins a chance to explain why they did
>>> what they did, in the event of a particularly controversial action that
>>> may nonetheless have been the best thing to do in a particular
>>> situation).
>>>       
>> Good luck getting anyone to run for adminship if they're going to be
>> subjected to what amounts to a weekly RfA.
>>     
>
> An RfA is only a big deal if you find yourself compelled to respond to every 
> point made against you...in other words, it's only a big deal if being an 
> administrator is an actual goal of yours--it's only a big deal if you *want* 
> to be an administrator.
>
> Frankly, those are the people I don't think should be administrators.
>
> If you don't really care much if you're turned down, all you have to do is 
> fill out your nomination statement and leave it alone.  These are the people 
> we need: people who don't necessarily *want* the job, but are willing to do 
> it at the request of the community.
>
> Are you familiar with Cincinnatus?  Or George Washington, for that matter?
>   
The model you propose would almost certainly require us to persuade the 
foundation to pay the administrator a stipend, of compensation.  If I 
want to volunteer to be an administrator, then I should not mind doing 
so uncompensated.  But you you have to drag someone who does *not want* 
it, then could you suppose, they would need compensation.  Pardon my 
loose parallel. 

./scream