On 03/03/11 5:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > 2011/3/3 Samuel Klein<[email protected]>: >> Amir writes: >>> Now i, in general, think that these permissions should be given >>> liberally to as many reasonable Wikimedians as possible. >> <snip> >>> In fact it's quite likely that communities will want to give as little >>> permissions as possible to users. >> Can you explain the apparent paradox above? > It's not a paradox: I think that they should be given liberally, but > many community members may think otherwise. It's not very logical, but > in all languages that i can read there are many discussions about it, > full of confusions and suspicions. I believe that the name > "administrator" is one of the main reasons for this and that's why i > suggest retiring it completely. > > The name "administrator" gives the impression of some mythical > "balance of power", although administrators don't actually > administrate - they (un)delete, (un)block and (un)protect, in addition > to editing articles and participating in discussions just like > everybody else. The name "sysop" (system operator), used occasionally > in English, and more frequently in some other languages (e.g. Hebrew), > sounds less like a managerial role, but it's technical and cryptic and > requires explanation. > > Giving user groups exact and real names will likely change the > attitude of many users who see these user groups as "the powers that > be" and think that they're impenetrable.
You make a strong point. People cherish their titles and the self-esteem. Being able to say "I am a Wikipedia administrator," to someone who has never edited Wikipedia gives an impression of importance. Breaking the task into its components leaves each part less prestigious. Saying that someone has "deletion privileges" instead of being a "deleter" disperses the sense of status. The way something is said can make a difference. Perhaps something as small as changing RfA to RfAP (Request for Administra*tion* Privileges) could have an effect by shifting the emphasis to privileges. There are huge flaws in the decision making process. The process of proposal, considered favorable response, overwhelming negative vote is common. It repeats itself, and that too becomes a part of the problem. There are always enough individuals to feel that their immediate rights or prospective rights are threatened to come out and give a sufficient vote to kill any reform proposal. Those of us who would want a more liberal and more flexible policy framework have become jaded. We see the pattern repeat itself, and can no longer be bothered when it comes up again ... if we haven't left Wikipedia altogether. We don't want to wade through the entire Encyclopedia of Witlessness before showing our support for a good reform proposal. A single paragraph of explanation should be enough. But even more, when we have heard the arguments so often, and have seen so many votes, we have no way of knowing that an important vote is happening. The reformers need to make a better effort of canvassing their support. Ray _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
