models for adminship/wiki leadership

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

models for adminship/wiki leadership

Brianna Laugher
Hello,

I am interested in finding out what models or processes different
projects use to decide adminship. And especially how those processes
adapt as the wiki community grows.

Note: this is not an invitation to bitch about the administrators at
your (least)favourite project.

There are some common views about adminship:
* Adminship is an expression of trust of an individual by the community.
* Adminship is decided by community consensus.
* Adminship represents a person taking on a janitorial role, doing
maintenance or "meta community" work rather than [in addition to?]
content-building work.
* Admins are wiki community leaders?
* Adminship is no big deal?

In technical terms, the admin has several extra functions at their disposal:
* un/protect pages from editing or moving, edit protected pages
* un/delete pages, view deleted pages
* un/block users
* rollback edits (basically redundant since the introduction of 'undo'
functionality)

Admin status is easier to get than it is to revoke. Admin status
doesn't have an expiry date [...yet???] and de-adminship requires
contacting a steward and demonstrating community consensus for the
de-adminship decision.

The word 'status' implies something that is often felt, that adminship
is recognitition of one's work/worth in a wiki, like a reward; that
admins are "above" "regular" users or their opinions hold more sway.
Admins generally can perform actions like declaring a discussion
closed, even though any user, even unregistered, could make the same
edit. I have a suspicion that an admin performing the action is seen
as making it "official", though.
Admins are often looked to for help, by new users. Sometimes an
"administrator's noticeboard" exists, although all users can generally
edit it.

Does it matter if admins are inactive? Does it matter if admins edit
actively but don't use their admin tools? Do they have to keep using
them to "deserve" them?

If admins are looked to for help and as community leaders, is not
having inactive admins somewhat deceptive?

Meta has an adminship policy I am quite fond of:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Administrator_on_Meta
"Sysop-hood is not a lifetime status. Get it if you need it. Keep it
if people trust you. Quit it if you do not need it. Lose it if people
feel they cannot trust you. Sysop status on meta will be granted for
one year. After that time, people will be able to vote to oppose a
sysop. If there is no opposition for the sysop to stay sysop, then
they stay sysop. If opposition is voiced, then the sysop may lose
sysopship if support falls below 75%. No quorum is required. It is not
a vote to gain support status, but a poll to express disagreement with
the current situation. The point is not to bug everyone to vote to
support the sysop again (if there is no opposition, there is no point
in voting your support again), the point is to not allow sysop-hood
status to stay a lifetime status. If a sysop is not really strongly
infringing rules, but is creating work for the community because of a
lack of trust, then it is best that people have the possibility to
express their opposition."

But I wonder if it is not kind of a lot of work.

Who are the RfA voters?
Once a community reaches a certain size, it's not possible to know
everyone and notice their work just by glancing over Recentchanges
every few days. It becomes more necessary to rely on trusted
testimonials. I trust User A's judgement, and User A endorses
Candidate B, so I will endorse Candidate B too. It encourages
something of the dreaded "cabal", a tight-knit group which it is not
possible to break into simply by doing good work - you need to "know"
the right people to succeed. I guess we all want to avoid that, but
when the wiki is so big, how is it possible?

Many people here will be familiar with English Wikipedia RfA, where
people's support or opposition for a candidate can rely on seemingly
trivial and ever-more-specific requirements. It is doubtful whether
all the current admins would pass such requirements, but they manage
to keep their adminship by virtue of not doing anything worrying or
damaging enough to have it removed.

I guess I am not the only person who is active on a non-enwp project,
and who wonders how RfA evolving like enwp can be avoided. I want to
know what other possible evolutionary paths are there? How can I help
influence my project to a more healthy, sustainable model?

So I want to know some ideas that other wikis use. Meta's "1 year
confirmation" is one. What else is there? What else could there be?

While writing this mail it occurred to me that perhaps part of the
problem is multiple   goals being conflated in adminship, ie "janitor
role" "community leadership". There are few ways to be considered a
community leader, I would posit, apart from adminship. Sure, if you're
lucky, someone might throw you a barnstar, but it's not like
*official* *community endorsement*.

Perhaps we need to create a post for designated community leaders.
(Community Leaders -please brainstorm a better term...)
Declaring someone a Community Leader would be an expression of trust
and endorsement. It would be an explicit recognition of a user's
worth, their contribution, to that wiki. It would be decided by
community consensus. It would not represent a janitorial role or
maintenance work, quite the opposite - it would represent someone who
excels at a particular (or multiple) aspect of collaborative content
building.

There would be a page with a list - official endorsement. Community
Leaders would represent very good "go to" people for new users needing
help in some area.

There would probably be very high overlap between admins and Community
Leaders, especially at the start. As the process became stronger, it
would be much clearer for new users who want to contribute, which
process (RfCL/RfA) is appropriate for what they want to achieve. For
status in the community, one should aim to be a Community Leader.
And then maybe adminship would really become "no big deal". Instead of
dealing with so many disputes, admins would be more about enacting the
decisions made by Community Leaders - a better reflection of the
division between the community role and the technical/maintenance role
that are currently both conflated within "adminship".

I welcome any ideas about all of this.

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

M. Williamson
Just a note:

Teh idea that adminship is no big deal and that it is more like being
a janitor than a politician is often repeated, and should be true in
theory, but it is not the way admins are perceived on most projects.

Mark

On 10/04/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am interested in finding out what models or processes different
> projects use to decide adminship. And especially how those processes
> adapt as the wiki community grows.
>
> Note: this is not an invitation to bitch about the administrators at
> your (least)favourite project.
>
> There are some common views about adminship:
> * Adminship is an expression of trust of an individual by the community.
> * Adminship is decided by community consensus.
> * Adminship represents a person taking on a janitorial role, doing
> maintenance or "meta community" work rather than [in addition to?]
> content-building work.
> * Admins are wiki community leaders?
> * Adminship is no big deal?
>
> In technical terms, the admin has several extra functions at their disposal:
> * un/protect pages from editing or moving, edit protected pages
> * un/delete pages, view deleted pages
> * un/block users
> * rollback edits (basically redundant since the introduction of 'undo'
> functionality)
>
> Admin status is easier to get than it is to revoke. Admin status
> doesn't have an expiry date [...yet???] and de-adminship requires
> contacting a steward and demonstrating community consensus for the
> de-adminship decision.
>
> The word 'status' implies something that is often felt, that adminship
> is recognitition of one's work/worth in a wiki, like a reward; that
> admins are "above" "regular" users or their opinions hold more sway.
> Admins generally can perform actions like declaring a discussion
> closed, even though any user, even unregistered, could make the same
> edit. I have a suspicion that an admin performing the action is seen
> as making it "official", though.
> Admins are often looked to for help, by new users. Sometimes an
> "administrator's noticeboard" exists, although all users can generally
> edit it.
>
> Does it matter if admins are inactive? Does it matter if admins edit
> actively but don't use their admin tools? Do they have to keep using
> them to "deserve" them?
>
> If admins are looked to for help and as community leaders, is not
> having inactive admins somewhat deceptive?
>
> Meta has an adminship policy I am quite fond of:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Administrator_on_Meta
> "Sysop-hood is not a lifetime status. Get it if you need it. Keep it
> if people trust you. Quit it if you do not need it. Lose it if people
> feel they cannot trust you. Sysop status on meta will be granted for
> one year. After that time, people will be able to vote to oppose a
> sysop. If there is no opposition for the sysop to stay sysop, then
> they stay sysop. If opposition is voiced, then the sysop may lose
> sysopship if support falls below 75%. No quorum is required. It is not
> a vote to gain support status, but a poll to express disagreement with
> the current situation. The point is not to bug everyone to vote to
> support the sysop again (if there is no opposition, there is no point
> in voting your support again), the point is to not allow sysop-hood
> status to stay a lifetime status. If a sysop is not really strongly
> infringing rules, but is creating work for the community because of a
> lack of trust, then it is best that people have the possibility to
> express their opposition."
>
> But I wonder if it is not kind of a lot of work.
>
> Who are the RfA voters?
> Once a community reaches a certain size, it's not possible to know
> everyone and notice their work just by glancing over Recentchanges
> every few days. It becomes more necessary to rely on trusted
> testimonials. I trust User A's judgement, and User A endorses
> Candidate B, so I will endorse Candidate B too. It encourages
> something of the dreaded "cabal", a tight-knit group which it is not
> possible to break into simply by doing good work - you need to "know"
> the right people to succeed. I guess we all want to avoid that, but
> when the wiki is so big, how is it possible?
>
> Many people here will be familiar with English Wikipedia RfA, where
> people's support or opposition for a candidate can rely on seemingly
> trivial and ever-more-specific requirements. It is doubtful whether
> all the current admins would pass such requirements, but they manage
> to keep their adminship by virtue of not doing anything worrying or
> damaging enough to have it removed.
>
> I guess I am not the only person who is active on a non-enwp project,
> and who wonders how RfA evolving like enwp can be avoided. I want to
> know what other possible evolutionary paths are there? How can I help
> influence my project to a more healthy, sustainable model?
>
> So I want to know some ideas that other wikis use. Meta's "1 year
> confirmation" is one. What else is there? What else could there be?
>
> While writing this mail it occurred to me that perhaps part of the
> problem is multiple   goals being conflated in adminship, ie "janitor
> role" "community leadership". There are few ways to be considered a
> community leader, I would posit, apart from adminship. Sure, if you're
> lucky, someone might throw you a barnstar, but it's not like
> *official* *community endorsement*.
>
> Perhaps we need to create a post for designated community leaders.
> (Community Leaders -please brainstorm a better term...)
> Declaring someone a Community Leader would be an expression of trust
> and endorsement. It would be an explicit recognition of a user's
> worth, their contribution, to that wiki. It would be decided by
> community consensus. It would not represent a janitorial role or
> maintenance work, quite the opposite - it would represent someone who
> excels at a particular (or multiple) aspect of collaborative content
> building.
>
> There would be a page with a list - official endorsement. Community
> Leaders would represent very good "go to" people for new users needing
> help in some area.
>
> There would probably be very high overlap between admins and Community
> Leaders, especially at the start. As the process became stronger, it
> would be much clearer for new users who want to contribute, which
> process (RfCL/RfA) is appropriate for what they want to achieve. For
> status in the community, one should aim to be a Community Leader.
> And then maybe adminship would really become "no big deal". Instead of
> dealing with so many disputes, admins would be more about enacting the
> decisions made by Community Leaders - a better reflection of the
> division between the community role and the technical/maintenance role
> that are currently both conflated within "adminship".
>
> I welcome any ideas about all of this.
>
> regards,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Sebastian Moleski
On 4/10/07, Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Just a note:
>
> Teh idea that adminship is no big deal and that it is more like being
> a janitor than a politician is often repeated, and should be true in
> theory, but it is not the way admins are perceived on most projects.


Maybe this has something to do with the fact that they are commonly the only
elected users for each project. If the whole community is supposed to get
together to vote on a candidate, that vote alone creates the probably not
unfounded impression that this is important. Think about it this way: how
many organizations have their membership vote on the janitor? And who in
their right mind is going to go through a process that not rarely is used to
rehash old conflicts and "roast" candidates for everything they've done
wrong at some time, for one or two weeks? The more selective a process is,
the more valuable is its outcome.

Sebastian
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Brianna Laugher
On 10/04/07, Sebastian Moleski <[hidden email]> wrote:
And who in
> their right mind is going to go through a process that not rarely is used to
> rehash old conflicts and "roast" candidates for everything they've done
> wrong at some time, for one or two weeks? The more selective a process is,
> the more valuable is its outcome.

Right!!!! That's exactly what I'm talking about. How can it be
avoided? Would creating an alternative path to recognition make RfA a
less sour process?


cheers,
Brianna

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Sebastian Moleski
On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/04/07, Sebastian Moleski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And who in
> > their right mind is going to go through a process that not rarely is
> used to
> > rehash old conflicts and "roast" candidates for everything they've done
> > wrong at some time, for one or two weeks? The more selective a process
> is,
> > the more valuable is its outcome.
>
> Right!!!! That's exactly what I'm talking about. How can it be
> avoided? Would creating an alternative path to recognition make RfA a
> less sour process?


This is certainly a fascinating topic but I wonder if it would be more
effectively held on a wiki talk page?

Sebastian
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Delphine Ménard
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
I would argue that for such a survey, a wiki page would be a good
idea, that could be linked from one wiki to the other.

The idea being tthat one wiki's community could answer those questions
within a delimited time (say, 3 weeks) and that this page is updated
as rules change and evolve.

I think such surveys on various topics can be very helpful in the
cross-cultural communication between projects (and here I mean project
culture, not necessarily national culture).

A million subjects come to mind as to what those "cross wiki surveys" could be:

Adminship: how it works, what it does, how has it evolved, and a part
about "suggestions from improvement".

Articles for deletion: How it works, what it does, advantages and drawbacks etc.

Copyright issues: how are they noted, how are they treated, what's the
tolerance, what are the specific rules in place in your project..

And so on.

A list is too much of a troll magnet, in my opinion. ;-)

Whatcha think?

Delphine

On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am interested in finding out what models or processes different
> projects use to decide adminship. And especially how those processes
> adapt as the wiki community grows.
>
> Note: this is not an invitation to bitch about the administrators at
> your (least)favourite project.
>
> There are some common views about adminship:
> * Adminship is an expression of trust of an individual by the community.
> * Adminship is decided by community consensus.
> * Adminship represents a person taking on a janitorial role, doing
> maintenance or "meta community" work rather than [in addition to?]
> content-building work.
> * Admins are wiki community leaders?
> * Adminship is no big deal?
>
> In technical terms, the admin has several extra functions at their disposal:
> * un/protect pages from editing or moving, edit protected pages
> * un/delete pages, view deleted pages
> * un/block users
> * rollback edits (basically redundant since the introduction of 'undo'
> functionality)
>
> Admin status is easier to get than it is to revoke. Admin status
> doesn't have an expiry date [...yet???] and de-adminship requires
> contacting a steward and demonstrating community consensus for the
> de-adminship decision.
>
> The word 'status' implies something that is often felt, that adminship
> is recognitition of one's work/worth in a wiki, like a reward; that
> admins are "above" "regular" users or their opinions hold more sway.
> Admins generally can perform actions like declaring a discussion
> closed, even though any user, even unregistered, could make the same
> edit. I have a suspicion that an admin performing the action is seen
> as making it "official", though.
> Admins are often looked to for help, by new users. Sometimes an
> "administrator's noticeboard" exists, although all users can generally
> edit it.
>
> Does it matter if admins are inactive? Does it matter if admins edit
> actively but don't use their admin tools? Do they have to keep using
> them to "deserve" them?
>
> If admins are looked to for help and as community leaders, is not
> having inactive admins somewhat deceptive?
>
> Meta has an adminship policy I am quite fond of:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Administrator_on_Meta
> "Sysop-hood is not a lifetime status. Get it if you need it. Keep it
> if people trust you. Quit it if you do not need it. Lose it if people
> feel they cannot trust you. Sysop status on meta will be granted for
> one year. After that time, people will be able to vote to oppose a
> sysop. If there is no opposition for the sysop to stay sysop, then
> they stay sysop. If opposition is voiced, then the sysop may lose
> sysopship if support falls below 75%. No quorum is required. It is not
> a vote to gain support status, but a poll to express disagreement with
> the current situation. The point is not to bug everyone to vote to
> support the sysop again (if there is no opposition, there is no point
> in voting your support again), the point is to not allow sysop-hood
> status to stay a lifetime status. If a sysop is not really strongly
> infringing rules, but is creating work for the community because of a
> lack of trust, then it is best that people have the possibility to
> express their opposition."
>
> But I wonder if it is not kind of a lot of work.
>
> Who are the RfA voters?
> Once a community reaches a certain size, it's not possible to know
> everyone and notice their work just by glancing over Recentchanges
> every few days. It becomes more necessary to rely on trusted
> testimonials. I trust User A's judgement, and User A endorses
> Candidate B, so I will endorse Candidate B too. It encourages
> something of the dreaded "cabal", a tight-knit group which it is not
> possible to break into simply by doing good work - you need to "know"
> the right people to succeed. I guess we all want to avoid that, but
> when the wiki is so big, how is it possible?
>
> Many people here will be familiar with English Wikipedia RfA, where
> people's support or opposition for a candidate can rely on seemingly
> trivial and ever-more-specific requirements. It is doubtful whether
> all the current admins would pass such requirements, but they manage
> to keep their adminship by virtue of not doing anything worrying or
> damaging enough to have it removed.
>
> I guess I am not the only person who is active on a non-enwp project,
> and who wonders how RfA evolving like enwp can be avoided. I want to
> know what other possible evolutionary paths are there? How can I help
> influence my project to a more healthy, sustainable model?
>
> So I want to know some ideas that other wikis use. Meta's "1 year
> confirmation" is one. What else is there? What else could there be?
>
> While writing this mail it occurred to me that perhaps part of the
> problem is multiple   goals being conflated in adminship, ie "janitor
> role" "community leadership". There are few ways to be considered a
> community leader, I would posit, apart from adminship. Sure, if you're
> lucky, someone might throw you a barnstar, but it's not like
> *official* *community endorsement*.
>
> Perhaps we need to create a post for designated community leaders.
> (Community Leaders -please brainstorm a better term...)
> Declaring someone a Community Leader would be an expression of trust
> and endorsement. It would be an explicit recognition of a user's
> worth, their contribution, to that wiki. It would be decided by
> community consensus. It would not represent a janitorial role or
> maintenance work, quite the opposite - it would represent someone who
> excels at a particular (or multiple) aspect of collaborative content
> building.
>
> There would be a page with a list - official endorsement. Community
> Leaders would represent very good "go to" people for new users needing
> help in some area.
>
> There would probably be very high overlap between admins and Community
> Leaders, especially at the start. As the process became stronger, it
> would be much clearer for new users who want to contribute, which
> process (RfCL/RfA) is appropriate for what they want to achieve. For
> status in the community, one should aim to be a Community Leader.
> And then maybe adminship would really become "no big deal". Instead of
> dealing with so many disputes, admins would be more about enacting the
> decisions made by Community Leaders - a better reflection of the
> division between the community role and the technical/maintenance role
> that are currently both conflated within "adminship".
>
> I welcome any ideas about all of this.
>
> regards,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
NB. Cette adresse est utilisée pour les listes de diffusion. Tout
email personnel envoyé à cette adresse sera probablement perdu.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Carolyn Doran
Quit making sense! ;)


Delphine Ménard wrote:

> I would argue that for such a survey, a wiki page would be a good
> idea, that could be linked from one wiki to the other.
>
> The idea being tthat one wiki's community could answer those questions
> within a delimited time (say, 3 weeks) and that this page is updated
> as rules change and evolve.
>
> I think such surveys on various topics can be very helpful in the
> cross-cultural communication between projects (and here I mean project
> culture, not necessarily national culture).
>
> A million subjects come to mind as to what those "cross wiki surveys" could be:
>
> Adminship: how it works, what it does, how has it evolved, and a part
> about "suggestions from improvement".
>
> Articles for deletion: How it works, what it does, advantages and drawbacks etc.
>
> Copyright issues: how are they noted, how are they treated, what's the
> tolerance, what are the specific rules in place in your project..
>
> And so on.
>
> A list is too much of a troll magnet, in my opinion. ;-)
>
> Whatcha think?
>
> Delphine
>
> On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am interested in finding out what models or processes different
>> projects use to decide adminship. And especially how those processes
>> adapt as the wiki community grows.
>>
>> Note: this is not an invitation to bitch about the administrators at
>> your (least)favourite project.
>>
>> There are some common views about adminship:
>> * Adminship is an expression of trust of an individual by the community.
>> * Adminship is decided by community consensus.
>> * Adminship represents a person taking on a janitorial role, doing
>> maintenance or "meta community" work rather than [in addition to?]
>> content-building work.
>> * Admins are wiki community leaders?
>> * Adminship is no big deal?
>>
>> In technical terms, the admin has several extra functions at their disposal:
>> * un/protect pages from editing or moving, edit protected pages
>> * un/delete pages, view deleted pages
>> * un/block users
>> * rollback edits (basically redundant since the introduction of 'undo'
>> functionality)
>>
>> Admin status is easier to get than it is to revoke. Admin status
>> doesn't have an expiry date [...yet???] and de-adminship requires
>> contacting a steward and demonstrating community consensus for the
>> de-adminship decision.
>>
>> The word 'status' implies something that is often felt, that adminship
>> is recognitition of one's work/worth in a wiki, like a reward; that
>> admins are "above" "regular" users or their opinions hold more sway.
>> Admins generally can perform actions like declaring a discussion
>> closed, even though any user, even unregistered, could make the same
>> edit. I have a suspicion that an admin performing the action is seen
>> as making it "official", though.
>> Admins are often looked to for help, by new users. Sometimes an
>> "administrator's noticeboard" exists, although all users can generally
>> edit it.
>>
>> Does it matter if admins are inactive? Does it matter if admins edit
>> actively but don't use their admin tools? Do they have to keep using
>> them to "deserve" them?
>>
>> If admins are looked to for help and as community leaders, is not
>> having inactive admins somewhat deceptive?
>>
>> Meta has an adminship policy I am quite fond of:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Administrator_on_Meta
>> "Sysop-hood is not a lifetime status. Get it if you need it. Keep it
>> if people trust you. Quit it if you do not need it. Lose it if people
>> feel they cannot trust you. Sysop status on meta will be granted for
>> one year. After that time, people will be able to vote to oppose a
>> sysop. If there is no opposition for the sysop to stay sysop, then
>> they stay sysop. If opposition is voiced, then the sysop may lose
>> sysopship if support falls below 75%. No quorum is required. It is not
>> a vote to gain support status, but a poll to express disagreement with
>> the current situation. The point is not to bug everyone to vote to
>> support the sysop again (if there is no opposition, there is no point
>> in voting your support again), the point is to not allow sysop-hood
>> status to stay a lifetime status. If a sysop is not really strongly
>> infringing rules, but is creating work for the community because of a
>> lack of trust, then it is best that people have the possibility to
>> express their opposition."
>>
>> But I wonder if it is not kind of a lot of work.
>>
>> Who are the RfA voters?
>> Once a community reaches a certain size, it's not possible to know
>> everyone and notice their work just by glancing over Recentchanges
>> every few days. It becomes more necessary to rely on trusted
>> testimonials. I trust User A's judgement, and User A endorses
>> Candidate B, so I will endorse Candidate B too. It encourages
>> something of the dreaded "cabal", a tight-knit group which it is not
>> possible to break into simply by doing good work - you need to "know"
>> the right people to succeed. I guess we all want to avoid that, but
>> when the wiki is so big, how is it possible?
>>
>> Many people here will be familiar with English Wikipedia RfA, where
>> people's support or opposition for a candidate can rely on seemingly
>> trivial and ever-more-specific requirements. It is doubtful whether
>> all the current admins would pass such requirements, but they manage
>> to keep their adminship by virtue of not doing anything worrying or
>> damaging enough to have it removed.
>>
>> I guess I am not the only person who is active on a non-enwp project,
>> and who wonders how RfA evolving like enwp can be avoided. I want to
>> know what other possible evolutionary paths are there? How can I help
>> influence my project to a more healthy, sustainable model?
>>
>> So I want to know some ideas that other wikis use. Meta's "1 year
>> confirmation" is one. What else is there? What else could there be?
>>
>> While writing this mail it occurred to me that perhaps part of the
>> problem is multiple   goals being conflated in adminship, ie "janitor
>> role" "community leadership". There are few ways to be considered a
>> community leader, I would posit, apart from adminship. Sure, if you're
>> lucky, someone might throw you a barnstar, but it's not like
>> *official* *community endorsement*.
>>
>> Perhaps we need to create a post for designated community leaders.
>> (Community Leaders -please brainstorm a better term...)
>> Declaring someone a Community Leader would be an expression of trust
>> and endorsement. It would be an explicit recognition of a user's
>> worth, their contribution, to that wiki. It would be decided by
>> community consensus. It would not represent a janitorial role or
>> maintenance work, quite the opposite - it would represent someone who
>> excels at a particular (or multiple) aspect of collaborative content
>> building.
>>
>> There would be a page with a list - official endorsement. Community
>> Leaders would represent very good "go to" people for new users needing
>> help in some area.
>>
>> There would probably be very high overlap between admins and Community
>> Leaders, especially at the start. As the process became stronger, it
>> would be much clearer for new users who want to contribute, which
>> process (RfCL/RfA) is appropriate for what they want to achieve. For
>> status in the community, one should aim to be a Community Leader.
>> And then maybe adminship would really become "no big deal". Instead of
>> dealing with so many disputes, admins would be more about enacting the
>> decisions made by Community Leaders - a better reflection of the
>> division between the community role and the technical/maintenance role
>> that are currently both conflated within "adminship".
>>
>> I welcome any ideas about all of this.
>>
>> regards,
>> Brianna
>> user:pfctdayelise
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>    
>
>
>  
qui

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Delphine Ménard
Delphine, I did set up such a page a while ago, for a comparison of
"welcoming" procedures I conducted.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cross-project_comparisons

I also detest wiki pages for discussions (rather than collections of
facts or links); IMO they are really not suited to the task.

But in general my feeling is that pages on Meta mostly die sad,
lonely, dusty deaths, and are not spontaneously updated by users from
250 projects as we would like to imagine. :)

I would just like some people to share some experiences and ideas they
have from   other wikis, since the only two I know well are English
Wikipedia and Commons.

cheers
Brianna

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Hoi,
On OmegaWiki people that can edit are typically also admin. This had a big
effect on vandalism .. It is also understood that as easy as it is given, it
can also be taken away.  This has so far not happened. For OmegaWiki it is
understood that it is the editing and not the sysop status that is of most
importance.

We have been happy with the people that came to OmegaWiki, they have been
good to us. The good thing about not having elections is that many of the
arguments that are more belief that fact do not play a role; when someone is
a known good, inactivity does not make him bad. There is no such thing as
"too many admins" or of a cabal. When we know people to do good, we trust
them with the limited functionality that the "buttons" bring.

One big difference in OmegaWiki is that people do not necessarily understand
each other; they do not need to speak the same language. This is a function
of the fact that our data can be presented in many languages. The result is
that it is not necessarily true that it is easy to judge if someone is doing
good work; I regularly ask people about contributions that seem problematic;
it is not feasible to appreciate all details of all languages consequently
we HAVE to trust people anyway. Trusting people to do well is an article of
faith in wikis. In OmegaWiki only more so.

You would also want for the Commons project to be truly multi lingual
because Commons is NOT necessarily an English language project. This would
mean that some basic assumptions have to be revisited. It will be
interesting to see if people have the ability and willingness to do that.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/04/07, Sebastian Moleski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And who in
> > their right mind is going to go through a process that not rarely is
> used to
> > rehash old conflicts and "roast" candidates for everything they've done
> > wrong at some time, for one or two weeks? The more selective a process
> is,
> > the more valuable is its outcome.
>
> Right!!!! That's exactly what I'm talking about. How can it be
> avoided? Would creating an alternative path to recognition make RfA a
> less sour process?
>
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Delphine Ménard
Great minds think alike...

Just this week I started to fill in profiles for different Wikipedia
communities, as part of our ongoing effort on the WikipediaWeekly
podcast to identify and discuss interesting practices in different
Wikipedias. (Shameless plug: www.wikipediaweekly.com) For example,
some interesting sample tidbits:

* Portugeuse Wikipedia, barnstars are not simply given out. They are
voted on by the community.
* German Wikipedia, there is a dedicated mailing list for
administrators. Current event articles are discouraged and usually
quickly deleted.
* Chinese Wikipedia, there is a need to map between two writing
systems - simplified and traditional
* Azerbaijani Wikipedia, there is a need for mapping among *three*
writing systems - Latin, Cyrillic and Arabic script

So the meta pages are just a start, and address some questions like
Delphine had:
What language features are challening?
What would surprise the outside reader about the community?
What are some unique practices/characteristics?

Please feel free to add and start new ones. Some samples:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Wikipedia
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Arabic_Wikipedia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_history

-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)


On 4/10/07, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would argue that for such a survey, a wiki page would be a good
> idea, that could be linked from one wiki to the other.
>
> The idea being tthat one wiki's community could answer those questions
> within a delimited time (say, 3 weeks) and that this page is updated
> as rules change and evolve.
>
> I think such surveys on various topics can be very helpful in the
> cross-cultural communication between projects (and here I mean project
> culture, not necessarily national culture).
>
> A million subjects come to mind as to what those "cross wiki surveys" could be:
>
> Adminship: how it works, what it does, how has it evolved, and a part
> about "suggestions from improvement".
>
> Articles for deletion: How it works, what it does, advantages and drawbacks etc.
>
> Copyright issues: how are they noted, how are they treated, what's the
> tolerance, what are the specific rules in place in your project..
>
> And so on.
>
> A list is too much of a troll magnet, in my opinion. ;-)
>
> Whatcha think?
>
> Delphine
>
> On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am interested in finding out what models or processes different
> > projects use to decide adminship. And especially how those processes
> > adapt as the wiki community grows.
> >
> > Note: this is not an invitation to bitch about the administrators at
> > your (least)favourite project.
> >
> > There are some common views about adminship:
> > * Adminship is an expression of trust of an individual by the community.
> > * Adminship is decided by community consensus.
> > * Adminship represents a person taking on a janitorial role, doing
> > maintenance or "meta community" work rather than [in addition to?]
> > content-building work.
> > * Admins are wiki community leaders?
> > * Adminship is no big deal?
> >
> > In technical terms, the admin has several extra functions at their disposal:
> > * un/protect pages from editing or moving, edit protected pages
> > * un/delete pages, view deleted pages
> > * un/block users
> > * rollback edits (basically redundant since the introduction of 'undo'
> > functionality)
> >
> > Admin status is easier to get than it is to revoke. Admin status
> > doesn't have an expiry date [...yet???] and de-adminship requires
> > contacting a steward and demonstrating community consensus for the
> > de-adminship decision.
> >
> > The word 'status' implies something that is often felt, that adminship
> > is recognitition of one's work/worth in a wiki, like a reward; that
> > admins are "above" "regular" users or their opinions hold more sway.
> > Admins generally can perform actions like declaring a discussion
> > closed, even though any user, even unregistered, could make the same
> > edit. I have a suspicion that an admin performing the action is seen
> > as making it "official", though.
> > Admins are often looked to for help, by new users. Sometimes an
> > "administrator's noticeboard" exists, although all users can generally
> > edit it.
> >
> > Does it matter if admins are inactive? Does it matter if admins edit
> > actively but don't use their admin tools? Do they have to keep using
> > them to "deserve" them?
> >
> > If admins are looked to for help and as community leaders, is not
> > having inactive admins somewhat deceptive?
> >
> > Meta has an adminship policy I am quite fond of:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Administrator_on_Meta
> > "Sysop-hood is not a lifetime status. Get it if you need it. Keep it
> > if people trust you. Quit it if you do not need it. Lose it if people
> > feel they cannot trust you. Sysop status on meta will be granted for
> > one year. After that time, people will be able to vote to oppose a
> > sysop. If there is no opposition for the sysop to stay sysop, then
> > they stay sysop. If opposition is voiced, then the sysop may lose
> > sysopship if support falls below 75%. No quorum is required. It is not
> > a vote to gain support status, but a poll to express disagreement with
> > the current situation. The point is not to bug everyone to vote to
> > support the sysop again (if there is no opposition, there is no point
> > in voting your support again), the point is to not allow sysop-hood
> > status to stay a lifetime status. If a sysop is not really strongly
> > infringing rules, but is creating work for the community because of a
> > lack of trust, then it is best that people have the possibility to
> > express their opposition."
> >
> > But I wonder if it is not kind of a lot of work.
> >
> > Who are the RfA voters?
> > Once a community reaches a certain size, it's not possible to know
> > everyone and notice their work just by glancing over Recentchanges
> > every few days. It becomes more necessary to rely on trusted
> > testimonials. I trust User A's judgement, and User A endorses
> > Candidate B, so I will endorse Candidate B too. It encourages
> > something of the dreaded "cabal", a tight-knit group which it is not
> > possible to break into simply by doing good work - you need to "know"
> > the right people to succeed. I guess we all want to avoid that, but
> > when the wiki is so big, how is it possible?
> >
> > Many people here will be familiar with English Wikipedia RfA, where
> > people's support or opposition for a candidate can rely on seemingly
> > trivial and ever-more-specific requirements. It is doubtful whether
> > all the current admins would pass such requirements, but they manage
> > to keep their adminship by virtue of not doing anything worrying or
> > damaging enough to have it removed.
> >
> > I guess I am not the only person who is active on a non-enwp project,
> > and who wonders how RfA evolving like enwp can be avoided. I want to
> > know what other possible evolutionary paths are there? How can I help
> > influence my project to a more healthy, sustainable model?
> >
> > So I want to know some ideas that other wikis use. Meta's "1 year
> > confirmation" is one. What else is there? What else could there be?
> >
> > While writing this mail it occurred to me that perhaps part of the
> > problem is multiple   goals being conflated in adminship, ie "janitor
> > role" "community leadership". There are few ways to be considered a
> > community leader, I would posit, apart from adminship. Sure, if you're
> > lucky, someone might throw you a barnstar, but it's not like
> > *official* *community endorsement*.
> >
> > Perhaps we need to create a post for designated community leaders.
> > (Community Leaders -please brainstorm a better term...)
> > Declaring someone a Community Leader would be an expression of trust
> > and endorsement. It would be an explicit recognition of a user's
> > worth, their contribution, to that wiki. It would be decided by
> > community consensus. It would not represent a janitorial role or
> > maintenance work, quite the opposite - it would represent someone who
> > excels at a particular (or multiple) aspect of collaborative content
> > building.
> >
> > There would be a page with a list - official endorsement. Community
> > Leaders would represent very good "go to" people for new users needing
> > help in some area.
> >
> > There would probably be very high overlap between admins and Community
> > Leaders, especially at the start. As the process became stronger, it
> > would be much clearer for new users who want to contribute, which
> > process (RfCL/RfA) is appropriate for what they want to achieve. For
> > status in the community, one should aim to be a Community Leader.
> > And then maybe adminship would really become "no big deal". Instead of
> > dealing with so many disputes, admins would be more about enacting the
> > decisions made by Community Leaders - a better reflection of the
> > division between the community role and the technical/maintenance role
> > that are currently both conflated within "adminship".
> >
> > I welcome any ideas about all of this.
> >
> > regards,
> > Brianna
> > user:pfctdayelise
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> ~notafish
> NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
> this address will probably get lost.
> NB. Cette adresse est utilisée pour les listes de diffusion. Tout
> email personnel envoyé à cette adresse sera probablement perdu.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Well, the idea that different projects have different numbers of and
requirements for admins is certainly true.

I'm guessing you could draw up an automated list for major wikis of
what percentage of the 100 or so most prolific contributors are
admins. That could be very telling, I think.

Mark

On 10/04/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Delphine, I did set up such a page a while ago, for a comparison of
> "welcoming" procedures I conducted.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cross-project_comparisons
>
> I also detest wiki pages for discussions (rather than collections of
> facts or links); IMO they are really not suited to the task.
>
> But in general my feeling is that pages on Meta mostly die sad,
> lonely, dusty deaths, and are not spontaneously updated by users from
> 250 projects as we would like to imagine. :)
>
> I would just like some people to share some experiences and ideas they
> have from   other wikis, since the only two I know well are English
> Wikipedia and Commons.
>
> cheers
> Brianna
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Sebastian Moleski
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I would just like some people to share some experiences and ideas they
> have from   other wikis, since the only two I know well are English
> Wikipedia and Commons.


If you're looking for unique or unusual ways of selecting admins,
Wikiversity may be an interesting project for you. After some discussion, we
decided on a few intersting points. First, admins would be called custodians
to better resemble the behind-the-scenes yet very important role they have.
Candidates for custodianship have to go through a four week mentorship
period during which they have all the "powers" regular custodians have. In
order to do that, they need to secure a mentor, generally defined as a
custodian with at least 6 months experience as a custodian (or admin on
another project).

After the four weeks, the mentor writes an evaluation for the candidate. If
the evaluation is negative, admin rights are removed from the candidate
unless he can secure a new mentor. If the evaluation is positive, there's a
five day period for comments from the community after which a bureaucrat
makes the final decision. There is no vote in this process.

Sebastian
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Delphine Ménard
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Delphine, I did set up such a page a while ago, for a comparison of
> "welcoming" procedures I conducted.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cross-project_comparisons

Tsk tsk. I did mention that I thought this should be on local
projects. Make this local. make this fun. Make this entertaining!

"You have three weeks to make sure this page is the most comprehensive
page of all the projects. Here are the questions, we need your
answers.". Make it translation of the week, interwiki of the week,
best practices of the week, collaboration of the week!

>
> I also detest wiki pages for discussions (rather than collections of
> facts or links); IMO they are really not suited to the task.
>
> But in general my feeling is that pages on Meta mostly die sad,
> lonely, dusty deaths, and are not spontaneously updated by users from
> 250 projects as we would like to imagine. :)

Meta, unfortunately, is not a good place for this, it's too "meta" for
something so "local". Meta however, should be the place where one wil
conduct the comparison.

>
> I would just like some people to share some experiences and ideas they
> have from   other wikis, since the only two I know well are English
> Wikipedia and Commons.

Yep, I understand. Start with making sure you don't revert to
acronyms. Frankly, I only learned what RfA was not so long ago
myself... ;-)

Delphine

--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Delphine Ménard
In reply to this post by Sebastian Moleski
On 4/10/07, Sebastian Moleski <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I would just like some people to share some experiences and ideas they
> > have from   other wikis, since the only two I know well are English
> > Wikipedia and Commons.
>
>
> If you're looking for unique or unusual ways of selecting admins,
> Wikiversity may be an interesting project for you. After some discussion, we
> decided on a few intersting points. First, admins would be called custodians
> to better resemble the behind-the-scenes yet very important role they have.
> Candidates for custodianship have to go through a four week mentorship
> period during which they have all the "powers" regular custodians have. In
> order to do that, they need to secure a mentor, generally defined as a
> custodian with at least 6 months experience as a custodian (or admin on
> another project).
>
> After the four weeks, the mentor writes an evaluation for the candidate. If
> the evaluation is negative, admin rights are removed from the candidate
> unless he can secure a new mentor. If the evaluation is positive, there's a
> five day period for comments from the community after which a bureaucrat
> makes the final decision. There is no vote in this process.

\o/

I love this.

Thank you for sharing this unusual and yet so much closer to reality
piece of wiki world.

A few weeks ago, a few en: editors and I were sitting in a room and we
came up with the following idea (or was it with the Italians strolling
outside in cold weather?):

How about giving adminship not as a package but as an "opt-in" thing?

You could become a "banner". Or a "blocker". Or a "protector". Or a
"deletor". Or all of those, or any of those you choose to be. Not
everyone knows how to use or can use wisely all the admin "powers".
Breaking them into what people really need could be a step towards
breaking the XP gain thing and levelling up to be an admin.

You'd run for one of those or all of those and provide explicit
reasons why you chose those options and not those others.

I know there is a technical barrier for that now, but I seem to
remember hearing that it could be pretty easily lifted.

An idea. (you did ask for ideas too Brianna, didn't you? :-D)

Delphine

--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
NB. Cette adresse est utilisée pour les listes de diffusion. Tout
email personnel envoyé à cette adresse sera probablement perdu.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Sydney Poore
On 4/10/07, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:
How about giving adminship not as a package but as an "opt-in" thing?

You could become a "banner". Or a "blocker". Or a "protector". Or a
"deletor". Or all of those, or any of those you choose to be. Not
everyone knows how to use or can use wisely all the admin "powers".
Breaking them into what people really need could be a step towards
breaking the XP gain thing and levelling up to be an admin.

You'd run for one of those or all of those and provide explicit
reasons why you chose those options and not those others.
==============================================

This has been suggested before. It has some merit.  One problem is that a
user might need to go through multiple RFAs. I think that might make the RFA
situation worse since we might begin over analyzing the traits a user really
needs for each skill. This type of over analysis is what many of us think is
the problem with RFA on EN Wikipedia now.

Sydney

On 4/10/07, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 4/10/07, Sebastian Moleski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would just like some people to share some experiences and ideas they
> > > have from   other wikis, since the only two I know well are English
> > > Wikipedia and Commons.
> >
> >
> > If you're looking for unique or unusual ways of selecting admins,
> > Wikiversity may be an interesting project for you. After some
> discussion, we
> > decided on a few intersting points. First, admins would be called
> custodians
> > to better resemble the behind-the-scenes yet very important role they
> have.
> > Candidates for custodianship have to go through a four week mentorship
> > period during which they have all the "powers" regular custodians have.
> In
> > order to do that, they need to secure a mentor, generally defined as a
> > custodian with at least 6 months experience as a custodian (or admin on
> > another project).
> >
> > After the four weeks, the mentor writes an evaluation for the candidate.
> If
> > the evaluation is negative, admin rights are removed from the candidate
> > unless he can secure a new mentor. If the evaluation is positive,
> there's a
> > five day period for comments from the community after which a bureaucrat
> > makes the final decision. There is no vote in this process.
>
> \o/
>
> I love this.
>
> Thank you for sharing this unusual and yet so much closer to reality
> piece of wiki world.
>
> A few weeks ago, a few en: editors and I were sitting in a room and we
> came up with the following idea (or was it with the Italians strolling
> outside in cold weather?):
>
> How about giving adminship not as a package but as an "opt-in" thing?
>
> You could become a "banner". Or a "blocker". Or a "protector". Or a
> "deletor". Or all of those, or any of those you choose to be. Not
> everyone knows how to use or can use wisely all the admin "powers".
> Breaking them into what people really need could be a step towards
> breaking the XP gain thing and levelling up to be an admin.
>
> You'd run for one of those or all of those and provide explicit
> reasons why you chose those options and not those others.
>
> I know there is a technical barrier for that now, but I seem to
> remember hearing that it could be pretty easily lifted.
>
> An idea. (you did ask for ideas too Brianna, didn't you? :-D)
>
> Delphine
>
> --
> ~notafish
> NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
> this address will probably get lost.
> NB. Cette adresse est utilisée pour les listes de diffusion. Tout
> email personnel envoyé à cette adresse sera probablement perdu.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

M. Williamson
I think it makes sense, though, because it would help prevent abuse.

Mark

On 10/04/07, FloNight <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4/10/07, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> How about giving adminship not as a package but as an "opt-in" thing?
>
> You could become a "banner". Or a "blocker". Or a "protector". Or a
> "deletor". Or all of those, or any of those you choose to be. Not
> everyone knows how to use or can use wisely all the admin "powers".
> Breaking them into what people really need could be a step towards
> breaking the XP gain thing and levelling up to be an admin.
>
> You'd run for one of those or all of those and provide explicit
> reasons why you chose those options and not those others.
> ==============================================
>
> This has been suggested before. It has some merit.  One problem is that a
> user might need to go through multiple RFAs. I think that might make the RFA
> situation worse since we might begin over analyzing the traits a user really
> needs for each skill. This type of over analysis is what many of us think is
> the problem with RFA on EN Wikipedia now.
>
> Sydney
>
> On 4/10/07, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/10/07, Sebastian Moleski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would just like some people to share some experiences and ideas they
> > > > have from   other wikis, since the only two I know well are English
> > > > Wikipedia and Commons.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you're looking for unique or unusual ways of selecting admins,
> > > Wikiversity may be an interesting project for you. After some
> > discussion, we
> > > decided on a few intersting points. First, admins would be called
> > custodians
> > > to better resemble the behind-the-scenes yet very important role they
> > have.
> > > Candidates for custodianship have to go through a four week mentorship
> > > period during which they have all the "powers" regular custodians have.
> > In
> > > order to do that, they need to secure a mentor, generally defined as a
> > > custodian with at least 6 months experience as a custodian (or admin on
> > > another project).
> > >
> > > After the four weeks, the mentor writes an evaluation for the candidate.
> > If
> > > the evaluation is negative, admin rights are removed from the candidate
> > > unless he can secure a new mentor. If the evaluation is positive,
> > there's a
> > > five day period for comments from the community after which a bureaucrat
> > > makes the final decision. There is no vote in this process.
> >
> > \o/
> >
> > I love this.
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this unusual and yet so much closer to reality
> > piece of wiki world.
> >
> > A few weeks ago, a few en: editors and I were sitting in a room and we
> > came up with the following idea (or was it with the Italians strolling
> > outside in cold weather?):
> >
> > How about giving adminship not as a package but as an "opt-in" thing?
> >
> > You could become a "banner". Or a "blocker". Or a "protector". Or a
> > "deletor". Or all of those, or any of those you choose to be. Not
> > everyone knows how to use or can use wisely all the admin "powers".
> > Breaking them into what people really need could be a step towards
> > breaking the XP gain thing and levelling up to be an admin.
> >
> > You'd run for one of those or all of those and provide explicit
> > reasons why you chose those options and not those others.
> >
> > I know there is a technical barrier for that now, but I seem to
> > remember hearing that it could be pretty easily lifted.
> >
> > An idea. (you did ask for ideas too Brianna, didn't you? :-D)
> >
> > Delphine
> >
> > --
> > ~notafish
> > NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
> > this address will probably get lost.
> > NB. Cette adresse est utilisée pour les listes de diffusion. Tout
> > email personnel envoyé à cette adresse sera probablement perdu.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Platonides
In reply to this post by Delphine Ménard
Delphine Ménard wrote:

> I know there is a technical barrier for that now, but I seem to
> remember hearing that it could be pretty easily lifted.
>
> An idea. (you did ask for ideas too Brianna, didn't you? :-D)
>
> Delphine
>

Not really. Permissions are already different, only that sysophood gives
all of them at once. You would only need to create one group per function.
So you could have some guys which can only block, others to edit the
MediaWiki: namespace, others to delete pages, others to restore them,
others to protect pages, others to rollback...
Can be a nightmare, but if you think it can help...

For example, i don't see why a "blocker" couldn't protect a page.
Instead of going to a "protecter" to ask to protect the being vandalized
page, he will block, as it's easier for him though not neccesary better.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Delphine Ménard
On 11/04/07, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Delphine, I did set up such a page a while ago, for a comparison of
> > "welcoming" procedures I conducted.
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cross-project_comparisons
>
> Tsk tsk. I did mention that I thought this should be on local
> projects. Make this local. make this fun. Make this entertaining!

Sorry, you are right that I didn't read your proposal properly.

> "You have three weeks to make sure this page is the most comprehensive
> page of all the projects. Here are the questions, we need your
> answers.". Make it translation of the week, interwiki of the week,
> best practices of the week, collaboration of the week!

That would be a very good way of collating information. But I
personally don't have the time right now to commit to such a project.
So I do the much simpler ask-the-mailing-list. But I will file this
idea away for the future if no one else takes it up. ;)

> > I would just like some people to share some experiences and ideas they
> > have from   other wikis, since the only two I know well are English
> > Wikipedia and Commons.
>
> Yep, I understand. Start with making sure you don't revert to
> acronyms. Frankly, I only learned what RfA was not so long ago
> myself... ;-)

My bad! :) Terribly sorry.

cheers
Brianna

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

jd-47
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher wrote:

> There would probably be very high overlap between admins and Community
> Leaders, especially at the start.As the process became stronger, it
> would be much clearer for new users who want to contribute, which
> process (RfCL/RfA) is appropriate for what they want to achieve. For
> status in the community, one should aim to be a Community Leader.
> And then maybe adminship would really become "no big deal". Instead of
> dealing with so many disputes, admins would be more about enacting the
> decisions made by Community Leaders - a better reflection of the
> division between the community role and the technical/maintenance role
> that are currently both conflated within "adminship".
The idea of having a list of trusted, well-skilled people is
interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User,
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPA ... are not so different from a
Community-Leader list _regarding one of its goal_ (ie. old-timers
helping newbies). But this is not a community-endorsement nor it is a
list of people who can Rule on.

The problem with separating adminship from leadership is that many admin
tasks require to rule on. Consensus is not always reached and admins are
expected to, well, rule on, then proceed (delete, protect, whatever).
Those two actions could be separated (a "Community-Leader" rules on,
then an admin puts the decision in effects), but I assess it would
impede the process.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: models for adminship/wiki leadership

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by M. Williamson
I agree it would make sense in larger wiki's, but I
would hate to see this become the default set-up.


Birgitte SB

--- Mark Williamson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it makes sense, though, because it would
> help prevent abuse.
>
> Mark
>
> On 10/04/07, FloNight <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On 4/10/07, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > How about giving adminship not as a package but as
> an "opt-in" thing?
> >
> > You could become a "banner". Or a "blocker". Or a
> "protector". Or a
> > "deletor". Or all of those, or any of those you
> choose to be. Not
> > everyone knows how to use or can use wisely all
> the admin "powers".
> > Breaking them into what people really need could
> be a step towards
> > breaking the XP gain thing and levelling up to be
> an admin.
> >
> > You'd run for one of those or all of those and
> provide explicit
> > reasons why you chose those options and not those
> others.
> > ==============================================
> >
> > This has been suggested before. It has some merit.
>  One problem is that a
> > user might need to go through multiple RFAs. I
> think that might make the RFA
> > situation worse since we might begin over
> analyzing the traits a user really
> > needs for each skill. This type of over analysis
> is what many of us think is
> > the problem with RFA on EN Wikipedia now.
> >
> > Sydney
> >
> > On 4/10/07, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4/10/07, Sebastian Moleski <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > > On 4/10/07, Brianna Laugher
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I would just like some people to share some
> experiences and ideas they
> > > > > have from   other wikis, since the only two
> I know well are English
> > > > > Wikipedia and Commons.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you're looking for unique or unusual ways
> of selecting admins,
> > > > Wikiversity may be an interesting project for
> you. After some
> > > discussion, we
> > > > decided on a few intersting points. First,
> admins would be called
> > > custodians
> > > > to better resemble the behind-the-scenes yet
> very important role they
> > > have.
> > > > Candidates for custodianship have to go
> through a four week mentorship
> > > > period during which they have all the "powers"
> regular custodians have.
> > > In
> > > > order to do that, they need to secure a
> mentor, generally defined as a
> > > > custodian with at least 6 months experience as
> a custodian (or admin on
> > > > another project).
> > > >
> > > > After the four weeks, the mentor writes an
> evaluation for the candidate.
> > > If
> > > > the evaluation is negative, admin rights are
> removed from the candidate
> > > > unless he can secure a new mentor. If the
> evaluation is positive,
> > > there's a
> > > > five day period for comments from the
> community after which a bureaucrat
> > > > makes the final decision. There is no vote in
> this process.
> > >
> > > \o/
> > >
> > > I love this.
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing this unusual and yet so
> much closer to reality
> > > piece of wiki world.
> > >
> > > A few weeks ago, a few en: editors and I were
> sitting in a room and we
> > > came up with the following idea (or was it with
> the Italians strolling
> > > outside in cold weather?):
> > >
> > > How about giving adminship not as a package but
> as an "opt-in" thing?
> > >
> > > You could become a "banner". Or a "blocker". Or
> a "protector". Or a
> > > "deletor". Or all of those, or any of those you
> choose to be. Not
> > > everyone knows how to use or can use wisely all
> the admin "powers".
> > > Breaking them into what people really need could
> be a step towards
> > > breaking the XP gain thing and levelling up to
> be an admin.
> > >
> > > You'd run for one of those or all of those and
> provide explicit
> > > reasons why you chose those options and not
> those others.
> > >
> > > I know there is a technical barrier for that
> now, but I seem to
> > > remember hearing that it could be pretty easily
> lifted.
> > >
> > > An idea. (you did ask for ideas too Brianna,
> didn't you? :-D)
> > >
> > > Delphine
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~notafish
> > > NB. This address is used for mailing lists.
> Personal emails sent to
> > > this address will probably get lost.
> > > NB. Cette adresse est utilisée pour les listes
> de diffusion. Tout
> > > email personnel envoyé à cette adresse sera
> probablement perdu.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12