User:Pigman/Musings on Adminship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pigman/Musings_on_Adminship. |
Nota Bene: This is a personal essay under construction. Unfinished sentences and note-like bits are to be expected during the writing process. Um, and admins? If any of these comments offend you or you believe it belittles your responsibilities or your commitment to Wikipedia, get a thicker skin. My respect and admiration for the vast majority[1] of admins is unbounded. Criticism does not equal disrespect. My criticism is intended to illuminate and explicate, not denigrate or insult.
I can't find the pesky template at the moment to put on this page but, like anything anyone writes on Wikipedia, this essay is a part of the project and all that entails. (my words, my beautiful words fly away. my mourning done, they escape to sere fields.) If anyone has comments on my tone, content, etc., please feel free to do so on the talk page. I will respond there as well as take such input into consideration in the development of the piece. "Consideration", however, is not an assurance of change. PigmanTalk to me 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] My Own Private Prolegomena
I feel profoundly ambivalent when I think about seeking adminship. I'm certain I could handle the additional privilege and responsibility of the three buttons but I feel my time on Wikipedia, while worthwhile, is already siphoning energy and time from other projects in my life. I'm not thrilled by the politics inherent in being an admin as well. I like editing articles and I like reaching consensus with reasonable people but I suspect my tolerance for what I view as trollish behavior is not in general accord with current Wikipedia standards. I suspect my concept of protecting the project includes faster banning of disruptive elements/people than is acceptable to admin culture and/or the Wikipedia body politic. I don't know. Of course, if I do stand for admin in the future, this little essay will undoubtedly be an excellent source for opposition fodder. I fail at affirmative self-promotion and caution.
Thinking about whether or not I want to be an admin has generated a certain amount of musing on my part about the nature and function of admins in the Wikipedia community. I'm hoping some of these observations may prove valuable to the community. At the least, it's an amusing writing project for me. Whether it will achieve a useful final form has yet to be seen. I have a short attention span.
[edit] Admins: Paragons, Comrades, Overlords
We are told admins are the face of Wikipedia, the visible paragons of idealized editor/citizens. They are the same as other editors except they have three more buttons: protect and delete pages, block other editors, and undo these actions. All Wikipedian editors are equal; except some are more equal than others. (Mandatory Animal Farm reference, check.)
[edit] Myths and Legends
As with any cultural group, myths and legends develop around subgroups. Some are based in reality and some are idealized versions of reality. Below I will address a few of these. Of course, none of these are pure fiction. These assertions/items are all more or less true. However, it is interesting to me the ways in which they conflict with the reality I observe on Wikipedia.
[edit] Admins are the same as other editors.
This is so patently false on so many levels I'm surprised it continues to be repeated. Perhaps at a certain high level of involvement and experience in Wikipedia processes this may be true but it certainly isn't true compared to the average editor. Admins are vetted Wikipedians, examined thoroughly to assure they are indoctrinated in the culture, versed in policy, guidelines, and behaviour. By no stretch of the imagination could they be equated with most Wikipedia editors.
Admin behaviour is closely scrutinized; they are appealed to as powers-that-be, and they are assumed to have supranormal comprehension and understanding of Wikipedia policy/guidelines.
[edit] Anyone with good judgment and experience on Wikipedia can be an admin.
Really? My recent observations of Requests for Admin indicate that gaining adminship involves intense scrutiny and the meeting of numerous diverse, individual standards of participants/voters. People who are specialists in particular areas of Wikipedia will often have their expertise questioned and blamed for not being an expert in additional areas. If they lack broad involvement in several specific areas, they are seen as unqualified. In the same way as higher education shapes the language of students, conforms them within certain parameters, discourages unconventional thinking and graduates stylistically similar researchers and teachers, so the RfA process only allows specific people through.
On one hand, this is a method of shaping and developing the culture of Wikipedia, of blessing a particular range of responses and enforcing taboos. It standardizes those who pass through, creating a certain uniformity of outlook and values. On the other hand, it is a method for choosing admins adverse to controversy. Mostly, it ensures choosing admins who take an exceptionally conservative approach to problem-solving. Are there exceptions? Of course. But this is the successful outcome I see the process most favouring. Is this approach wrong or bad? No, but there is a sense that getting active intervention by admins can be a difficult and time-consuming matter, particularly in non-routine situations.
[edit] Admins are not police.
Er, yes they are. They are tasked with maintenance and janitorial duties and ensuring all sorts of things function smoothly but they are also protectors of the Wiki. Every one of their additional capabilities is a kind of policing authority on a daily basis, providing enforcement of policy and guidelines. Is police/enforcement work all admins do? No, but to ignore or pretend such responsibility and action doesn't exist is willful ignorance.
Deleting pages, even at the consensus request of Wikipedians, is still a powerful gatekeeping and policing tool. Speedy deletion of pages requires a keen sense of what falls within the parameters of the project in many cases. And banning editors, well, it doesn't get more police-like than that.
[edit] Admins are janitorial.
Yes, the constant references to the "mop and bucket" and doing "housekeeping" are reminders of the metaphor. Yet what are their tasks? Carrying out the consensus will of "regular" Wikipedians? Sometimes, but critical judgment and evaluation is necessary to effectively parse the actions needed. Just because they were asked to, admins don't always impose a ban on someone. Their role is more like judges who are asked to adjudicate a case. They have to refer to past experience, precedent, policy, guidelines, etc. to decide on the proper course of action. It's a more complex job than putting a mop to the floor and sweeping. Some of it is routine, yes, but much of it also consists of applying a particular kind of Wikipedian justice.
[edit] Granting Admin status is trivial matter.
Despite Jimbo saying this in the link above, it would be a hard slog to find many Wikipedians who would affirm believing it without numerous caveats. If it were trivial, there would be more nominations, a lower bar to passage, and as many admins as were needed on Wikipedia would be enabled. Instead, adminship remains a difficult needle to thread.
[edit] The Reluctant Overlords
Admins will be among the first to tell you that they don't see themselves as "different" or "above" other Wikipedians in status. This is the myth perpetuated despite easily demonstrated daily contradictions to it. Most admins do not abuse their additional powers. But, despite measures to keep inequity at a minimum, there is an undeniable hierarchy built into the admin system.
For all of that, the Wikipedia and admin cultures strongly discourage abuse and, at the same time, attempt to foster a sense of altruistic service to the community at large. A few admins seem concerned with displays of status and power but these are very much the exceptions.
[edit] Smell the Glove
Perhaps it's the pressure of the position and tasks. Perhaps it's just inevitable seekers of power for its own sake. If you've been a part of the regular Wikipedia editing community for a while, you've probably run into one or two admins who are arrogant and dismissive of your concerns in some situations. For whatever reason, these admins are sure that their grasp of policy elevates them above the rabble of common editors and they make sure others know this. In fact, they seem to thrive on some unacknowledged domination/submission dynamic only they are privy to. This is sometimes encouraged or enabled by some newbies' tendency to suck up, calling the admin sir or ma'am, and inevitably adding "Master/Mistress" "Admin" So-and-so when speaking of them to ensure people understand the great weight and power of the admin's opinion and words.
[edit] References
- ^ Ah, why so qualified? I'm just careful about my choice of words and I'm not prone to inaccuracy in this instance.
