Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote: >> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >> > The Wikipedia community >> > painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it >> > can find the exits, the paths to fix it. >> As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument "if you want to >> fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first" is >> routinely deployed, making for an infinite regress in some cases, and in >> others the generation of suggestions that are rather clearly >> counterproductive for fixing A, whatever they may do for B. In the real >> world, if you want people to do thankless and time-consuming tasks for >> you for no money, and much criticism, you have to rely on something more >> than "be sure that you'll be told if we don't like you and what you do". > > Eh? Is this coherent? > > Who is the "you" who wants "people" to do thankless tasks? > > What is the "pet gripe" in the discussion? > > What is being discussed is "declining numbers of EN wiki admins," and > how to address it. In that, surely it is appropriate and even > necessary to examine the entire administrative structure, both how > admin privileges are created and how they are removed. > > So "A" here would be declining numbers. "B," then, must be the > difficulty of removal, which leads to stronger standards for accepting > admins in the first place, which leads to declining applications and > denial of some applications that might have been just fine. > > There is no evidence that there are declining applications because of > fear of being criticized as an adminstrator, and the numbers of admin > removals are trivial, so Charles is expressing a fear that is > imaginary. If it were easier to gain tools and still difficult to lose > them unless you disregard guidelines and consensus, there would be no > loss of applications, there would be a gain. A large gain. Actually, most people who don't apply as an admin just don't apply. They don't generate "evidence" one way or another. It is a perfectly sensible attitude for a well-adjusted Wikipedian getting on with article work not to want to be involved in admin work. There are editors on the site who make the lives of those who cross them miserable: and an admin has the choice of avoiding such editors, or getting in the way of abuse. My expressed fear is very far from "imaginary". You put your head above the parapet, you may get shot at, precisely for acting in good faith and according to your own judgement in awkward situations.
What follows that seems to be a non sequitur. It was not what I was arguing at all. > > What I'm seeing here, indeed, is an illustration of the problem. The > attitude that Charles expresses is clearly part of the problem, and > Charles is suggesting no solutions but perhaps one of ridiculing and > rejecting all the suggestions for change. > Ah, but this is in line: "Charles's attitude" becomes something that must be fixed before recruiting more people to stand for adminship. I was actually commenting on the thread, not the issue. We should examine this sort of solution, amongst others: identify WikiProjects with few admins relative to their activity, and suggest they should look for candidates. Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
