Jon Q wrote: > The site sounds so wonderful as you enter -- "Come on in! Start writing! > Be bold! Break the rules!" and you're heartened by the seeming generosity > of spirit. Until you actually encounter some experienced editors. The > problem here then becomes something I've seen over and again in my own > career -- people are actually more comfortable with "rules" than with vague > standards which could allow for wiggle room. They all KNOW about the > pillars and IAR and pay lip service -- but in practice, they have little > real application. What's surprising is -- administrators seem to behave the > same! > > You make some good points. Of course Wikipedia isn't utopian - nothing is, and even less so on the Internet with no screening of editors.
Translating from the "world of wiki" to the "world of work", as you do later in your post, what we really lack in admin selection could perhaps be summed up as a "standard psychological test" that could reveal who would show up in tense situations with an understated, reasonable, but firm approach. This thread originated in an issue where there must have been some failure to observe such standards, and not just on one side. I don't think there is any consensus as to what should be done. I'm of the school that thinks that admins should get on with editing and routine tasks, and only get involved with issues as they crop up (but should never duck those that do). The trouble with the other, more authoritarian approach typefied by AN is that it produces both wrong outcomes and an adverse reaction that now reveals itself as nay-saying in the community. My two cents. 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
