[Wikipedia-l] Developers should mind their own business

Tue Mar 9 12:01:40 UTC 2004

Salve!

I already posted this alternative idea for the administrative power on the 
German mailinglist because I have the experiances of some radiostations:

Radio/TV stations have one "Chef vom Dienst" (CvD) (Wiktionary is needed, I 
had to call www.dw-world.de for thier offical translation): "chief duty 
editor"(duty=liability). The chief duty editor has only a special task during 
his shift, he does not play a special role in the hirachy nor in conferences. 
He is a journalist like the other editors, but in his shift as chief duty 
editor he cares about the administration stuff: what breaking news is 
important, which editor cares about which story, the timetable... so during 
his shift he is to busy to write own storrys/news.

Often this job is rotaiting, so an editor takes this role as chief duty editor 
only once a week.

Why do I proposed this idea for the Wikipedia to think about this modell?

Because in my eyes (as normal Wikipdianer) I found > 50 administrators not 
transparent. Would someone ask me next time to become admin, I would reject 
this, because I think this system is sub-perfect. I do not use my PC with 
root-rights, especialy not for internet communication, so why should I use 
wikipedia everytime as administrator?
When I would be an admin an d write an articel and have a dispute with other 
users - there is the danger that I nor the user user could seperate between 
my admin function and my normal subjective wikipedia-work.

==Reducing the power to bann IPs/user==
Going on with this idea I came to the point, that the right to ban IPs and 
user should have only one person at once. Image all experienced trusted user, 
which would become admin today are canditated for the "chief duty editor". 

1. When a trusted user logs in he can declare that he would candidate for 
chief duty editor in that session.

2. The first candidate who logged in become the demand note by the Wikipedia 
System to be the "chief duty editor" for the next 2 hours. (He can accept or 
reject, for example when he is drunk at that time).

3. When two or more candidates are online they have to agree who takes the 
job, in case of a stalemate (stand-off) an algorithmus like the one with the 
most edits since be the last time chief duty editor could help.

4. In case that one chief duty editor time of 2 hours are finish, he goes 
offline before or he does not answer on requests to ban one IP/User inbetween 
3 minutes, the system calls again all candidates to find one new chief duty 
editor

5. In case that no candidate is only all trusted users become a message 
(pop-up) to become candidate inbetween next 2 minutes ;)

6. On a populare wikipedia page is shown who is chief duty editor right now 
and has a log of all shifts, with all action in the name of chief duty 
editor.

7. The chief duty editor use his special account only for administration and 
statments as administrator, but not for normal editings - for that he must 
use his normal account, but he should work full time with reading, giving 
comments on disscussion pages and delete nonsens, and not try to write or 
change own article during his shift.

8. In case that the chief duty editor is going mad, every trusted user can 
request a despose of the chief duty editor but the one who request this can`t 
become chief duty editor for next 24h. If  he has to argue well and to try to 
solve the problem in dialog with the chief duty editor before and every 
trusted wikipedian who is online become a call to vote. The one who lost this 
vote lost his status trusted wikipedian after a final voting inbetween 48h 
clears this case. 

==Reducing the power to delete==
At the moment we have lists where we propose candidats for deleating, these 
have to be deleted 7 days after the proposel. But also some trolls and stupid 
articles, which have to deleated instancely. IMHO it would be nice to see how 
many people does care about this work at this time. When > 50 admins does 
care about this job, but also write artikles at the same time, this isn`t 
very systematic. 
So I would like to see an algorithmus, but more easy like I proposed for the 
chief duty editor that every trusted wikipedian could choose if he 
concentrate on doing administration work, or just only work on articles of 
his interest.

The admins will complain now, but I be admin honorable and I do like to work 
on articles on my interests - write, edit and when I think there is one 
article bullshit, I deleat it. THATS the point that I whant to avoid, because 
this is subjective work and will bring confilcts with other non-admin users, 
especialy when the number of admins will grow.

I think I would be better when admins would more split their work, the normal 
contributings and the administration stuff. Those who say, I like to do 
administration stuff when they log in should take more responsability than 
only to check their wathchlist.
Mybe by an algrorithm that admins/editors are supported by a softwaretool that 
they have to read systematicaly every new article and every changed articel 
once a month.

But admins should think about the option to do not work as admin and 
concentrate on what they like to do. Sure, you would say you have already the 
freedom as admin to do this. But so we have no systematic, no overview how 
works as admin today - 50? 30? 10? none?

Am Dienstag, 9. März 2004 08:30 schrieb Tim Starling:
> There is no sense in giving developers administrative power. Developers
> are good at programming, not management of a community.
Am Dienstag, 9. März 2004 09:51 schrieb Pedro Fortuny:
> I agree with Tim. This reminds me of the "three powers" (and I know this
> is not a State and there is no such thing as a "government"). *Division*
> of work and functions is
>
> 	a) more transparent (there is not even the remote possibility
> 		of dictatorship, and mistakes are mistakes in only one
> 		part of the project).
> 	b) easier to maintain (someone with just one function may be
> 		removed as there will easily be substitutes. Someone for
> 		just one function is more easily found than for two).
> 	c) easier to work in (the person needs only care about "one"
> 		aspect of the project).

This is funny, the admins are working with root-account for deleating and ban 
users and get in trouble with normal users, because they mix thier admin role 
and their subjective wikipdianer role and argue that developers can`t have 
the softskill to manage social conflicts. With this arguments a,b,c you be in 
favor that admins are not allowed to write or edit articles. *g*

I want the admins to have no admin rights from time to time, e.G. every second 
week, because than they reflect more their skills of social managment. 
Probably it is more work to argue and request other admins to take final 
action, but in this situation admins learn to reflect and to argue why an 
other admin should take action. Secondary effect is that there isn´t a two 
class comunity in todays way that more rights are linked to a person, it 
would be more transparent that it is linked to a task and trusted 
wikipedianer takeover the task from time to time (or you can say monarchie 
vers. democraty) And finaly I would like see a general and a personal log of 
admin action, to see what is done, not only to controll admins, also to see 
who does honorable good work.

On the other hand, one developer could learn, too when he works as admin from 
time to time to see how it works and to get ideas how to make the software 
better. But this period should be only like stagiers for developers and 
during their stagiers they should not have the access to the webserver to 
find out more than normal admins know.

Think about this point: every article could be modified, why not also who is 
admin today?

I would like to become admin one day, but only when I have the right to say, I 
do not be admin today. Someone said becoming admin can`t harm, but I beleave 
that a high number of admins and the mixing of personal and admin task/role 
harm already, and will be a growing problem.

Till now I got ony 3 contras like "don`t/(no need) to change the status quo" 
in Germany, instead of finding people how like to go on with thinking about 
an alternative solution. Probably the normal reaction when someone propose to 
reduse the power of other people. But my aime is not bureaucracy or to make 
it more compicated than neccessary, I want to avoid the office admin and like 
to replace it with the task admin, that some user can take as (full)job from 
time to time, like a "chief duty editor":
-one "chief duty admin"
-and some "duty admins"
recruted day by day, hour of hour from a number of trusted wikipedianers 
(wikpedians).

Anyone who likes this idea and likes to go on to think about alternativities?

rob