[Foundation-l] Term of service?

[Jan Kulveit]

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 09:28:46PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> As long as adminship only represents a certain level of trust and is
> primarily used to push buttons for those who can't, that shouldn't be
> a problem. I've long felt that admins should be called "trusted
> users". 

But is it that way anywhere? In both wiki communities I know something 
about it seems
-any explicit level of trust has social implications
-status of admins in the community is increased more than what would 
derive from technical powers of admins
-this leads to increased demands on adminiship candidates
-there is a positive feedback, more trust is demanded and admins are
more trusted group

My guess is this works naturally, and repeatig "adminship is not a 
big deal" doesn't help much.

> To de-admin someone is then to explicitly label them as
> untrusted, and that should only be done in nasty cases. It would also
> mean that everyone who contributes and understands the policies should
> eventually become trusted, without a need to sum up percentages for
> namespace contributions or edit summaries.
> 

Does it actually work that way on any project of moderate to large size? 

Jan Kulveit (Wikimol)