[Wikipedia-l] New codebase status- Now, Editors?

[rose.parks at att.net]

Members-

     I couldn't agree more. The title "editor" implies a 
totally different job function to me. Yes, editors deal 
with content, but they usually review, alter, and/or 
approve content. As was already said, in this sense, all 
Wikipedians are editors.
     Another issue is whether we want to identify 
members' functions, at all, on the user page. There are 
many other ways to identify developers and sysops on 
Wikipedia and they should be considered too. There could 
be a sysops page and a developers page with a list of 
such people.
     Frankly, I like the site as it is. Developes are 
identified by going to Source Forge, usually, and if a 
developer has not been included on this site, I think 
they can simply ask. Sysops know who they are by the 
sidebar on their view of the Wikipedia pages.
     Maybe someone in favor of ths system can explain 
the advantages to me.

           As Ever,

             Ruth Ifcher
--
			
> On 6/1/02 6:52 PM, "lcrocker at nupedia.com" <lcrocker at nupedia.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > We need some status for a generally well-known member of the
> > group who we trust to make content choices like editing
> > protected pages, temporarily banning vandals, deleting pages,
> > and so on.  We also need a status for more dangerous things like
> > database queries and other maintenance tasks.  The current
> > software calls these "sysop" and "developer", but I think "editor" and
> > "sysop" makes more sense.  Developers will probably have logins to the
> > server and direct database access, so they don't need any rights the
> > software knows about--they exist outside the software.
> >
> "Editor" is a bad name, because everyone is an editor, and should be
> considered as such. I've already expressed my views on the need for sysops
> etc.
> 
> [Wikipedia-l]
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
> http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l