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(a)nupedia.com"
<lcrocker(a)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