Erik Moeller <erik@...> writes:

> 
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan <nawrich <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The problem is the behavior of a certain core set of Commons admins; time
> > and time and time again we have it reported here, we see it on Commons.
> > While not lawyers, they attempt to be extraordinarily demanding when it
> > comes to "legal" accuracy. Far more than the actual WMF lawyers have
> > required, incidentally.
> 
[snip]
> 
> In that way, the problems in the application of Commons policy are not
> that different from the problems in the application of policy on
> Wikipedia. It's just that Wikipedians who are used to operating under
> the regime of Wikipedia's policies frequently get upset when they are
> subjected to an entirely different regime. Their experience is not
> that different from that of a new user whose article gets speedied
> because the source cited to establish its notability doesn't quite
> cross the threshold applied by an admin.
> 
> In my view, it would be appropriate for WMF to take a more active role
> not in the decision-making itself, but in the training of and support
> for administrators and other functionaries to ensure that we apply
> policy rationally, in a manner that's civil and welcoming. That goes
> for these types of deletion decisions just as much as for civility and
> other standards of conduct. WMF is now organizationally in a position
> where it could resource the consensus-driven development of training
> modules for admins across projects to create a more welcoming,
> rational environment - on Commons and elsewhere.
> 
> Erik
> 

Refreshing approach Erik.  It would good to see if there could be a
continued conversation about this, maybe something at Wikimania.

I say refreshing, as it follows a similar user talk page conversation at
Commons that discussed the workload for admins trying to manage just the
daily uploads. Part of the reflection was that it was better to be a little
overzealous in the policing to maintain the quality, and to maintain a
curated collection, making it significantly better than flickr, and making
the collection meaningful.

To me it requires multi-pronged approach. You identified that more can done
to support admins. We still have more to do educate users, and the tools
that we have now make an upload easy, however, does it do sufficient to
inform, and does it do enough to provide a framework to ensure that the
added works are within scope. Is there more we can do to make some of the
administrative tasks easier, so admins feel less squeezed for time, and more
able to be supportive rather than squeezed.

Regards, Billinghurst


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to