To Giga 1: What are the great traditions of GuildWiki, in your opinion?
What are the great traditions of GuildWiki, in your opinion? As an admin or bureaucrat, we'll expect you to uphold ... something, and I'd like to know what it's going to be. --◄mendel► 11:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- GWiki has traditionally been about accuracy and friendliness. However, I feel that we've moved away from those a little bit because people believe that a small group of old hands cannot maintain an entirely accurate wiki. Thus the wiki itself is now floundering a bit for a purpose, do we continue to uphold accuracy and readability and the ability to be open? Or do we continue with the new approach to users where Everybody Gets a Second Chance. I think we can do both. Just look at Recent Changes. As TEF commented on the Community Portal we were able to quickly update the vast majority of articles, with about four people. Guild Wars has been a game of ups and downs. Why should the wiki be any different? It's been commented on before that Anet knows that they have a large subset of individuals who have applicably finished the game and have moved on, and only return for the once a year celebrations for free stuff, or new content. We should know this too, that our activity is going to have low points when nothing in particular is going on, and spikes when big updates or the festivals happen. I still believe in our Island of Lost Toys initiative, and everyone SHOULD get a second chance, from here. When I judge someone I never look at their contributions on other wikis. GWiki is in every way a haven. We take in the poor, the lost, the destitute, and we turn them out as productive, thoughtful, insightful and agreeable members of a community. GWiki is here for all the information you need. The GWiki community is here for all help you need. This is also why I flat out oppose welcome templates. Ramble ramble ramble, etc.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy with that answer. My personal take is a bit broader than just "take in the huddled masses", I tried to promote respect for everyone, no matter where they come from, how hard it is for them to express themselves or to learn certain things, no matter whether they already forfeit their respect on other wikis or whether they criticize us. Respect each person and weigh their words on the merits of what they contain. Also, nice way to say "wiki's not dead yet". ;) --◄mendel► 22:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
To Giga 2: What do you look for in an admin?
What do you look for in an admin? What are the standards you would be an admin by or appoint new admins if you became a bureaucrat? --◄mendel► 11:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reliability, trust, and a calm head on their shoulders. Even though we have policies specifically made to prevent admins from lording their powers over other users, new users feel intimidated by admins, even if they rightly shouldn't be. I remember that when I first joined the wiki I had a crippling fear of editing in case I said something wrong and pissed an admin off and got banned. This lasted for about 2 or so months while I was still learning wiki coding by trial and show preview. Anyway: I wouldn't go randomly promoting people because with this new round of admins and by association beercrats, we have a lot of people on during all times of the day. However, that being said, I don't stand by the No admins because too many admins policy. So basically: I would appoint on a case by case basis dependent entirely on how much I can trust a person to make the right call under pressure. Especially if that right call is doing nothing.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you ever need an admin to do nothing, you can count on me. --Vipermagi 20:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, I'm happy with that answer, as far as it extends, which is to the traditional way of adminstrating users, using the admin tools.
- TEF's recent observations added a new dimension to what I think admins' roles should be: admins are there to support the community. They traditionally do this by removing disturbances through admin tools, intervention or moderation in conflicts. They also support the community by providing development of the wiki interface, help run the server and contact the hosting staff. What hasn't been observed is that traditionally we would choose those people as admins who were friendly and helpful. I think support extends to help people with their wiki projects, motivate them to start their own, move them from idea to implementation. It helps if an admin has some wiki projects of his or her own. (And lest Vipermagi should feel excluded, I always felt you to be as a "he's got my back" sort of person, which is a tremendous support if you realize you have it. You are very diligent and extremely competent on RC patrol, and you weigh in on all important wiki decision with an opinion I always regarded highly.)
- So were I to promote an admin today, I'd ask myself in what ways they support the wiki community, and whether giving them admin tools would help them do that better, by making things easier for them or by boosting their confidence by this overt act of community trust. Obviously you don't need to be an admin to support the wiki community, and in fact many of our strong supporters aren't. --◄mendel► 22:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)