[Wikipedia-l] "adminship is no big deal"

Thu Jan 19 02:44:01 UTC 2006

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 1/18/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Yes, it is somewhat outdated, but it remains true in a sense;
>>administrators are on the same level as everyone else as far as
>>content is concerned, pointing out that you are an administrator will
>>not get you far in a content dispute, and carried far enough, will
>>get you desysopped.  There are occasional lapses and few folks sneak
>>around a bit, but those who think being an administrator gives them
>>authority over the most important thing in Wikipedia, content, are
>>mistaken.
>>    
>>
>Admins decide which content gets deleted and which content gets
>undeleted.  They decide when pages are protected and when they are
>unprotected.  While those pages are protected they decide what those
>pages are going to say.  They decide when to block someone for
>violating the three revert rule and when not to block someone for
>violating it.
>
>On very rare occassion an admin does something so ridiculously
>outrageous and out of touch with the POV of the arbitration committee
>that they get reprimanded for it, but there are numerous occassions
>where they influence content and nothing happens at all.
>
>It's very hard to separate power from authority, and in a flat (as
>opposed to hierarchical) system, it's probably impossible.
>
It's all about building trust.  If a sysop has built a reputation for 
fairness he can "get away" with a lot more.  The community knows that 
his edits do not deviate radically from accepted norms.  He will also 
show himself willing to discuss issues when his decisions are 
questioned, and will be quick to admit when he is wrong.  If he wants to 
take a stand he will choose his issues carefully without feeling 
compelled to maintain an argument about everything.

That just seems like elementary ability to get along with people.

Ec