Hoi,
As WiktionaryZ is dragged into this discussion, let me explain how it is
at this moment. At this moment we have people edit WiktionaryZ that we
trust / know / come recomended / ask. We are at this time in a pre-alpha
stage, we do not have versioning, being an admin is not a big thing.
Being able to edit is. When someone proves that he either does not
understand the concept of what we are trying to do. When someone does
not communicate his/her concerns and makes a mess, we will protect our
data and revoke the edit right. The admin right goes with it.
We have been clear about this notion. We do not want to discuss this
really as it is not compatible with the state of our project. The notion
of having to watch closely is in my mind problematic because by arguing
that this is needed, there will always be people that either think that
it is there place to complain and want things different even though they
have no knowledge about a project (assume that everything is like
Wikipedia).
Every project has it's own way of doing things. WiktionaryZ is different
because not only is it a project where we are in a pre-alpha state, it
is also a project where we aim to have people from all nationalities and
languages work together. This requires that things are particular to
WiktionaryZ. We welcome people to contribute to WiktionaryZ. We ask to
be judged on what we are and what we do and not to be judged by what
some consider "normal".
Thanks,
GerardM
effe iets anders wrote:
> I can imagine that it works well for a lot of wiki's. As I understood
> also WiktionaryZ is very easy on the behalf of making someone sysop.
> And other wiki's are as well. It is very like "adminship is no big
> deal". And maybe it shouldn't. But then deamminship shouldn't be a big
> deal either i think. Because when someone is adminned easely, the
> chance that you grab someone who doesn't fit the profile is easier,
> and deadminning should be easier, so you can fix it quick as well.
> I've seen little misuse of people with adminship, apart from things
> like easier blocking etc. But that is something the community can and
> should solve anyway. You will have the same issues on that behalf when
> s.o. is after a hard procedure admin.
> And regarding bureaucrat, that shouldn't be a big deal either maybe.
> Because a sysop is supposed to be trusted, the bureaucrat is as well.
> As long as you watch closely what each bc is doing.
>
> greetings, Lodewijk
>
> 2006/8/12, Filip Maljkovic <dungodung@gmail.com>:
>
>> geni wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 40 admins, 25 are bureaucrats? Yikes! I thought having 42 admins with 4
>>>> bureaucrats was a lot!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Certian projects tend to promote people to bureaucrat rather than
>>> admin. Species for one.
>>>
>>>
>> In Serbian Wikipedia, on the other hand, there was a lax policy
>> regarding admin/bureau. promotions. Namely, after 1 month of active
>> contributions, you could become an admin and after 1 more month, a
>> bureaucrat. That has changed in the past half a year or so. Now, with
>> regards to some recent situations, I wouldn't be surprised if the policy
>> becomes ever so restrictive. I, for example, became an admin in 11 days
>> (fastest in sr: wikipedia). :) But that was more than a year ago...
>>
>> Filip
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l