[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on Admin Rights on WMF Wiki (and other things)

[Deryck Chan]

In contrast to my post in the original thread (that I'm sceptical about how
long WMF wiki will survive without volunteer admins), I do think the WMF is
allowed their own piece of turf.

In general, when there's an "owner" of a WMF-hosted wiki, we generally
allow the "owner" group to have totalitarian control over who gets
adminship of the wiki. (eg. chapter wikis, Wikimania wikis - I'm grateful
that thehelpfulone respected the WM2013's local team's request to not grant
adminship to anyone without the team's explicit approval.)

Now it comes to the WMF's own wiki, and we freak out when WMF wants their
piece of turf back. True that the WMF wiki has *traditionally* been
community-managed; but that was an exception because of how old this wiki
is. With the legal responsibility of the WMF at stake, I do think the
community should be nice to the WMF (for once!) and let them keep the *
nominal* control over the wiki. (I say "nominal" because, as many have
pointed out, raw HTML can be used on the WMF wiki, which kind of means that
anyone entrusted with a WMF wiki account can still screw everyone over if
they so wish.)

Deryck

On 23 May 2013 19:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just in case someone wonders,
>
> Gayle Karen Young, 23/05/2013 06:22:
>
>> [...]  goal was to ensure that the function of a wiki
>>
>> adminstrator, which is often identified with community self-governance, is
>> clearly mapped against the governance model of the site: [...] [...]
>>
>
> doesn't answers the questions on the table at all. Especially as "the
> governance model of the site" doesn't exist at all and nobody has any idea
> of who is going to take care of it.
>
> Or in other words:
>
> Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 13/05/2013 02:04:
> > Gayle Karen Young wrote:
> >
> >> Hello folks,
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Gayle
> >
> > So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
> > any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.
>
> So, to quote yourself, you committed criticism and now you're insisting
> with stonewalling, with a flavour of defensiveness. I admit that my
> knowledge of Gottman is limited to a recent magazine article I read by
> chance a few days ago, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there's
> little room to do worse in this relationship.
>
> Nemo
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>