More about Wikipedia
Recently on Habré appears more and more articles about Wikipedia. After reading all kilometer discussions about the fact that Wikipedia is censored, that it expresses a strictly defined political position, that it exists only for moderators to collect money and all decisions there are based solely on the desire of their left heels, I, like a man, have been for three years participated in the creation and maintenance of order in the free encyclopedia, hair stand on end. In this regard, I would like to give a few explanations about what exactly Wikipedia is and what kind of people are its administrators.
That is an encyclopedia that is distributed under a free license. Yes, this is not a project that provides users to arrange Internet democracy or anarchy, but an encyclopedia, with the appropriate rules (language, framework of permissible, etc.).
This is not true. Administrators do have some freedom in making administrative decisions (this is especially true when deleting articles and making bans), but they always have a certain set of rules by which they should be guided. These same rules are established by active participants in Wikipedia, and the discussion of these rules themselves is open to all. The same notorious rules about the significance of the articles were not established by someone’s left heel, but were widely discussed.
If the administrator regularly violates these very rules or just systematically makes incorrect decisions, measures can be taken to him (in the entire history of Russian Wikipedia, the decision to remove the flag was made by the Arbitration Committee 6 times). Almost all decisions of an administrator can be challenged (in particular, there is an established procedure for deleting articles), or simply contact the administrators for an explanation (most of them do not bite, although there are unpleasant incidents).
I personally, as the administrator of the Russian Wikipedia with a half-year experience, I can say that during this time my position brought me $ 0.00. The same is true for my other colleagues (at least, if someone found out that the administrator is doing something for money, then this administrator would very quickly lose his authority). And the donations that the fund collects every year go almost entirely for equipment and administrative costs (salary to managers, a lawyer, sysadmins, and a couple more people; details ).
')
The concept of significance appeared when Wikipedia faced the fact that PR people of various stripes of various companies became interested in it, as well as enthusiasts who want to promote a new album of their “garage” rock band. It was necessary to try to draw a line between them and normal articles. Thus, the notion of “significance” appeared in the form in which it is now. And all criteria of significance were written mainly from this consideration.
By the way, deleting articles in no way saves server space - for all deleted articles are still recorded in a special archive and accessible to all administrators; That is why the deletion of articles on Wikipedia can be challenged.
About how much administrators earn, I have already said above. Now I will have to greatly disappoint those who think that the status of the admin on Wikipedia is just a pleasant excuse to increase the CSW. So, the Wikipedia admin:
None of this is particularly enjoyable.
Please remember that Wikipedia is created by a team of editors (which you can also enter), and administrators are also people, and people who donate quite a lot of their personal time and energy; One should also not forget that this is actually an elected position.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is an encyclopedia that is distributed under a free license. Yes, this is not a project that provides users to arrange Internet democracy or anarchy, but an encyclopedia, with the appropriate rules (language, framework of permissible, etc.).
Wikipedia admins everything
This is not true. Administrators do have some freedom in making administrative decisions (this is especially true when deleting articles and making bans), but they always have a certain set of rules by which they should be guided. These same rules are established by active participants in Wikipedia, and the discussion of these rules themselves is open to all. The same notorious rules about the significance of the articles were not established by someone’s left heel, but were widely discussed.
If the administrator regularly violates these very rules or just systematically makes incorrect decisions, measures can be taken to him (in the entire history of Russian Wikipedia, the decision to remove the flag was made by the Arbitration Committee 6 times). Almost all decisions of an administrator can be challenged (in particular, there is an established procedure for deleting articles), or simply contact the administrators for an explanation (most of them do not bite, although there are unpleasant incidents).
Wikipedia exists for the sake of moderating its funds in its pocket
I personally, as the administrator of the Russian Wikipedia with a half-year experience, I can say that during this time my position brought me $ 0.00. The same is true for my other colleagues (at least, if someone found out that the administrator is doing something for money, then this administrator would very quickly lose his authority). And the donations that the fund collects every year go almost entirely for equipment and administrative costs (salary to managers, a lawyer, sysadmins, and a couple more people; details ).
')
In Wikipedia, there is a cult of "significance", whose supporters seek to remove half of the articles.
The concept of significance appeared when Wikipedia faced the fact that PR people of various stripes of various companies became interested in it, as well as enthusiasts who want to promote a new album of their “garage” rock band. It was necessary to try to draw a line between them and normal articles. Thus, the notion of “significance” appeared in the form in which it is now. And all criteria of significance were written mainly from this consideration.
By the way, deleting articles in no way saves server space - for all deleted articles are still recorded in a special archive and accessible to all administrators; That is why the deletion of articles on Wikipedia can be challenged.
The post of Wikipedia administrator is a good opportunity to delete non-liking articles and earn money.
About how much administrators earn, I have already said above. Now I will have to greatly disappoint those who think that the status of the admin on Wikipedia is just a pleasant excuse to increase the CSW. So, the Wikipedia admin:
- He is engaged in blocking schoolchildren and trolls who have confused Wikipedia with a fence.
- Removes a bunch of links that are spammers, forgetting that everywhere stands rel = nofollow, as well as the fact that Google reads the Wikipedia spam list, insert their links everywhere, where necessary or not.
- Looks through a lot of articles put up for deletion, while trying to separate normal articles from PR and really insignificant groups.
- Explains (for every 25 deletions there is one requirement of explanations) why this or that article was deleted, and sometimes the tone of the interlocutor is very different from the friendly ones.
- He is engaged in the fact that he “separates” supporters of different points of view, who sometimes take a great interest and pass on the personality of the opponent during the conflict.
- the list can be continued for a long time
None of this is particularly enjoyable.
Total
Please remember that Wikipedia is created by a team of editors (which you can also enter), and administrators are also people, and people who donate quite a lot of their personal time and energy; One should also not forget that this is actually an elected position.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/79039/
All Articles