From: Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net>
JAY JG wrote:
From:
Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net>
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was just trying to
say that if there are more admins, then it will be easier to keep problem
users with administrative privileges under control,
But that's never been a problem, has it? And that's because there's a
process that ensures that admins are not "problem users". What you're
proposing is to do away with the process, make just about everyone admins,
and then fix the inevitable problem of "problem users with administrative
privileges" by creating even more admins to deal with them.
That is entirely correct - but you're making it sound worse than it is. We
are *already* allowing just about everyone to edit, and then we fix the
inevitable problem of "problem users" simply by having enough
"sensible"
editors to deal with them. We have already shown that this process works
well!
My proposal is to fix a completely different problem -- namely the fact
that the current "process that ensures that admins are not problem users"
excludes a load of users who wouldn't be problem users, but people oppose
their adminship because they have some vague fear that they may somehow
turn bad.
We allow editors great latitude because the whole point of Wikipedia is to
allow editors to edit, in order to create a great encyclopedia. However,
the point of Wikipedia is not to create admins; therefore the latitude
allowed in that area is significantly less, though we still have over 500
admins, which I suspect is perhaps 10 times as many as any other online
community/project.
(I find it amazing that I have to argue for the wiki
principle here; the
only arguments I am using are extensions of all the arguments all of you
use when you tell normal people about wiki and they are sceptical that it
would work.)
I find it amazing that people still keep thinking the goal of Wikipedia is
to create a giant online Wikipedia community which personifies Wikipedia
principles. In fact, that is a means to the goal, which is creating an
encyclopedia. To the extent that the principles help further the goal, they
are worth implementing, regardless of the inevitable negative side effects
they cause. However, when enforcement of these principles in other areas
will inevitable add even more headaches, with no perceivable improvement to
the process of creating an encyclopedia, then we have to prioritize.
Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia, not promulgating an ideology.
Jay.