Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Non encyclopedic - I'd suggest deleting this page David n m bond 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Sure. Why does this need to be formalized, though? ~~ N ( t/ c) 18:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
To what extent does redundancy = top-heavyness = stratification ≠ egalitarian? - Splash 18:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I first look at what "Too many X" tries to prevent. From what I've seen, either people assume there's this default quota that should not be breached (this is untrue, so be bold), or they accept that more X leads to higher possibility of X abuse. I won't argue with that, it's a numerical fact, but opposing specific people with this in mind could quite possibly be bad faith. Worth formalising. -- Soir ( say hi) 19:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems like the real issue is not one of redundancy, but teamwork. Even if one administrator was working on our backlogs with all his available time, it would take ages to eliminate them. Hence, we have more than one administrator to do the job. It is not a question of having backups in case one is incapacitated, but of having all of them available at once. Also, in general redundancy in administration is confusing. For example, I don't understand why we really need Wikipedia:Village pump (news), Wikipedia:Announcements, Wikipedia:Goings on, and Wikipedia:Signpost. Another example would be the profusion of meta-like wikis(i.e. grants wiki, Wikimedia Foundation, Meta) I think that type of redundancy(which is plentiful on Wikipedia) is bad. So, I think this policy is good-intentioned but flawed, and I oppose it in its current form. Superm401 | Talk 20:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Do we need a "policy" that merely lists a set of arguments that are regularly brought up when someone requests bureaucratship? Is this sort of opinion piece better placed on meta? Do we want to invite the creation of Wikipedia:Too many cooks spoil the broth or something similar? (Please, nobody create such a page—it would just be making a WP:POINT.)
I haven't seen any adminships opposed on the grounds of 'too many admins already' and IRC ops aren't elected or approved here on the wiki; it would seem that this policy/guideline is directed toward the perennial argument raised during bureaucratship nominations. This guideline, as written ("...redundancy should be sought in any situation where there are few negatives to having it...") begs the question of whether or not the risks of having additional bureaucrats (or even admins, for that matter) are safely negligible.
Making the bald statement
would seem to be directed at discounting the votes and opinions of good-faith participants in the Requests for Bureaucratship process by presuming that their legitimate concerns are unfounded.
I would encourage any members of the pro-redundancy camp to appeal to the reason and good sense of RfB voters—explain why more bureaucrats are necessary, why the risks are low for particular individuals, why redundancy is a good thing. I would strongly discourage any attempt to create a policy or guideline to give some sort of official imprimatur to one viewpoint in this debate. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I find this page overgeneral. There is a valid argument to be made in favor of redundancy, but this is so basic to all technique that it means little standing alone.
Redundancy incurs costs, too. I would not be so foolish as to found Wikipedians against redundancy -- but neither would I endorse any given proposal merely on the strength of its redundancy.
My initial reaction is to think of this page as trivial, but then, I don't find trivial content worthy of attack. I should not participate in any attempt to destroy this.
I have removed the {{ proposed}} tag, without prejudice to later restoration. This is ineligible for policy, because it does not promote or suggest any action. I am tempted to strengthen it into a possible policy statement, thus making it more transparent and eligible for consideration as policy, but I defer that move. Perhaps another editor will Be Bold and make such a move. I have gone so far as to indicate what I believe to be a general direction in which such a move could be taken.
Please note that there is a great deal written which is not article content, yet is also not policy -- accepted, proposed, or failed. There remain opinion and general statements of fact; this page falls somewhere in this range.
— Xiong 熊 talk * 00:28, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy already exists. This page does approach it from a different angle (redundant editors rather than content) but I don't see how this couldn't be condensed to two sentences and placed in the existing guideline as a neutral statement of how redundancy is also viewed. Also, I'd like to second SuperM that redundancy in administration can be a bad thing. Insofar as it does expand things it over-generalizes and may I say that also that it's a touch repetitive or internally redundant (if you like). Marskell 18:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Non encyclopedic - I'd suggest deleting this page David n m bond 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Sure. Why does this need to be formalized, though? ~~ N ( t/ c) 18:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
To what extent does redundancy = top-heavyness = stratification ≠ egalitarian? - Splash 18:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I first look at what "Too many X" tries to prevent. From what I've seen, either people assume there's this default quota that should not be breached (this is untrue, so be bold), or they accept that more X leads to higher possibility of X abuse. I won't argue with that, it's a numerical fact, but opposing specific people with this in mind could quite possibly be bad faith. Worth formalising. -- Soir ( say hi) 19:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems like the real issue is not one of redundancy, but teamwork. Even if one administrator was working on our backlogs with all his available time, it would take ages to eliminate them. Hence, we have more than one administrator to do the job. It is not a question of having backups in case one is incapacitated, but of having all of them available at once. Also, in general redundancy in administration is confusing. For example, I don't understand why we really need Wikipedia:Village pump (news), Wikipedia:Announcements, Wikipedia:Goings on, and Wikipedia:Signpost. Another example would be the profusion of meta-like wikis(i.e. grants wiki, Wikimedia Foundation, Meta) I think that type of redundancy(which is plentiful on Wikipedia) is bad. So, I think this policy is good-intentioned but flawed, and I oppose it in its current form. Superm401 | Talk 20:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Do we need a "policy" that merely lists a set of arguments that are regularly brought up when someone requests bureaucratship? Is this sort of opinion piece better placed on meta? Do we want to invite the creation of Wikipedia:Too many cooks spoil the broth or something similar? (Please, nobody create such a page—it would just be making a WP:POINT.)
I haven't seen any adminships opposed on the grounds of 'too many admins already' and IRC ops aren't elected or approved here on the wiki; it would seem that this policy/guideline is directed toward the perennial argument raised during bureaucratship nominations. This guideline, as written ("...redundancy should be sought in any situation where there are few negatives to having it...") begs the question of whether or not the risks of having additional bureaucrats (or even admins, for that matter) are safely negligible.
Making the bald statement
would seem to be directed at discounting the votes and opinions of good-faith participants in the Requests for Bureaucratship process by presuming that their legitimate concerns are unfounded.
I would encourage any members of the pro-redundancy camp to appeal to the reason and good sense of RfB voters—explain why more bureaucrats are necessary, why the risks are low for particular individuals, why redundancy is a good thing. I would strongly discourage any attempt to create a policy or guideline to give some sort of official imprimatur to one viewpoint in this debate. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I find this page overgeneral. There is a valid argument to be made in favor of redundancy, but this is so basic to all technique that it means little standing alone.
Redundancy incurs costs, too. I would not be so foolish as to found Wikipedians against redundancy -- but neither would I endorse any given proposal merely on the strength of its redundancy.
My initial reaction is to think of this page as trivial, but then, I don't find trivial content worthy of attack. I should not participate in any attempt to destroy this.
I have removed the {{ proposed}} tag, without prejudice to later restoration. This is ineligible for policy, because it does not promote or suggest any action. I am tempted to strengthen it into a possible policy statement, thus making it more transparent and eligible for consideration as policy, but I defer that move. Perhaps another editor will Be Bold and make such a move. I have gone so far as to indicate what I believe to be a general direction in which such a move could be taken.
Please note that there is a great deal written which is not article content, yet is also not policy -- accepted, proposed, or failed. There remain opinion and general statements of fact; this page falls somewhere in this range.
— Xiong 熊 talk * 00:28, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy already exists. This page does approach it from a different angle (redundant editors rather than content) but I don't see how this couldn't be condensed to two sentences and placed in the existing guideline as a neutral statement of how redundancy is also viewed. Also, I'd like to second SuperM that redundancy in administration can be a bad thing. Insofar as it does expand things it over-generalizes and may I say that also that it's a touch repetitive or internally redundant (if you like). Marskell 18:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)