2011/3/3 Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com>: > Amir writes: >> Now i, in general, think that these permissions should be given >> liberally to as many reasonable Wikimedians as possible. > <snip> >> In fact it's quite likely that communities will want to give as little >> permissions as possible to users. > > Can you explain the apparent paradox above?
It's not a paradox: I think that they should be given liberally, but many community members may think otherwise. It's not very logical, but in all languages that i can read there are many discussions about it, full of confusions and suspicions. I believe that the name "administrator" is one of the main reasons for this and that's why i suggest retiring it completely. The name "administrator" gives the impression of some mythical "balance of power", although administrators don't actually administrate - they (un)delete, (un)block and (un)protect, in addition to editing articles and participating in discussions just like everybody else. The name "sysop" (system operator), used occasionally in English, and more frequently in some other languages (e.g. Hebrew), sounds less like a managerial role, but it's technical and cryptic and requires explanation. Giving user groups exact and real names will likely change the attitude of many users who see these user groups as "the powers that be" and think that they're impenetrable. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
