3 ms·

I think the reason for decline (and bureaucracy) is actually a lack of democracy. For example, there is no way to recall administrators. Also, opinion of majori

by js8 11y ago

I think the reason for decline (and bureaucracy) is actually a lack of democracy. For example, there is no way to recall administrators. Also, opinion of majority is sometimes dismissed as not being good consensus, which only helps people in established cliques. Democracy is a rule that ensures fairness, but senior administrators do not always want it. Secondary problem is IMHO the caste nature of administrator privileges. I think if the privileges were more separated and it would be possible to recall them, this would reduce the ossification of the hierarchy. I also think Wikipedia could benefit from having a stable branch into which the changes from unstable branch could be regularly reviewed for addition. It would be nice if unstable branch could return to the idea that someone can add things even if they are not perfect or immediately sourced; IMHO experts can always add sources later for content that is already present, and it would give them some incentive to contribute. That being said, Wikipedia is amazing! I would really like to thank to people who put some work into it.

rspeer 11y ago
I'm not so concerned about recalling administrators. Administrators who do blatantly bad things sometimes end up losing their position, and sometimes just end up with enough people angry at them that they leave. What I'm concerned about is that there's no way to get new administrators, which is what it would take to bring in new ideas that break up the unnecessary bureaucracy. The process that used to create them got entirely paralyzed, both by ridiculous inflation of metrics (I saw the edit count requirements -- they call them suggestions but they're requirements -- increase by a factor of 20 while I participated), and by the requirement to convince a supermajority of long-standing editors to vote for you. I became an administrator in '06, and by '08 I would never have been considered. Basically, you have to edit every part of the encyclopedia while upsetting nobody, then inflate your already prolific accomplishments to get your foot in the door, without looking like a liar. This is impossible. Old administrators (like me) lose interest. New ones don't take their place. The work is being increasingly done by the most obsessive people, and by faceless bots.

by js8 11y ago

rspeer 11y ago

I'm not so concerned about recalling administrators. Administrators who do blatantly bad things sometimes end up losing their position, and sometimes just end up with enough people angry at them that they leave. What I'm concerned about is that there's no way to get new administrators, which is what it would take to bring in new ideas that break up the unnecessary bureaucracy. The process that used to create them got entirely paralyzed, both by ridiculous inflation of metrics (I saw the edit count requirements -- they call them suggestions but they're requirements -- increase by a factor of 20 while I participated), and by the requirement to convince a supermajority of long-standing editors to vote for you. I became an administrator in '06, and by '08 I would never have been considered. Basically, you have to edit every part of the encyclopedia while upsetting nobody, then inflate your already prolific accomplishments to get your foot in the door, without looking like a liar. This is impossible. Old administrators (like me) lose interest. New ones don't take their place. The work is being increasingly done by the most obsessive people, and by faceless bots.