[WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

Wed Jan 4 09:22:46 UTC 2006

slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>I feel that admins have to be able to trust
>each other's judgement, even when we may disagree with it, so that
>blocks aren't constantly being done and undone; and that speaks
>directly to the issue of how we elect new admins, because if we want
>to trust their judgement, and have them trust ours, there has to be a
>shared philosophy or vision, and that requires a minimum amount of
>community interaction before they're promoted. Without community
>interaction, there's no respect for the community. But with too much
>community interaction, there might be less respect for the
>encyclopedia. So electing admins who have the right balance of edits
>is a tricky business, a very "big deal" in my view.
>
This matter of trust is paramount; that builds as the community gets to 
know you.  In time one gets to know who can deal with problems, or who 
is able to address a problem without becoming a part of the problem.  
That's a skill that takes a long time to develop. 

Having objective criteria helps  Total overall edits, total edits to the 
article namespace, how long a person has been signed up can all be a 
part of it.  More difficult to measure would be someone's people 
skills.  We could ask, "Give an example where you were able to build 
consensus with someone that you initially disagreed with."  I'm 
convinced that this kind of skill is among the most important.

"No big deal" is a mantra that has not scaled well.

Ec