User:Thorncrag/On RfA content-building

STOP! Are you voting down an administrator candidate because of lack of content-building experience? If you are, please reconsider, and read on. Administration != Content building.

The grand 'ol mop.

The difference between administration and content-building

It's a retort perennially seen in WP:RFAs: contributors with little to no content-building experience would make poor administrator candidates. For some reason, many editors on Wikipedia believe that a contributor should have made a large amount of what is coined as "content-building" to be considered for adminship. For purposes of this essay, let's define content-building as (1) creating new articles and (2) making substantial improvements to existing articles. Administration by its very definition is the opposite of content-building. We have a great many contributors who excel at content-building—this much is obvious, given that Wikipedia has over 4 million articles, many of which are considered good quality. Content-building, should a contributor choose it, could be a full-time job and one which would never end.

Administration, likewise should an administrator choose, could also be a full-time job. What is often forgotten is that Wikipedia also has a great number of what would be considered technical contributors—that is, those who are good at analyzing problems, sorting out details, noticing things that are wrong, even those who are good at mediating disputes, or otherwise eliciting calmness and putting out fires. Many of those contributors do not excel at building content.

We therefore have two very important and vital roles on Wikipedia, both of which can be considered full-time jobs.

It's time to start assessing editors based on the content of their contributions—"the content of their character"—and stop judging based on sheer edit count whether content or otherwise.

One part fallacy, one part hypocrisy

The problem with the no-content argument is multi-faceted. First, it is built upon several fallacious and therefore invalid assumptions:

1. That content-building experience is required to be a good administrator
2. That a lack of content-building experience accurately demonstrates a lack of understanding of content-building
3. That a lack of content-building experience accurately demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies
4. That administration involves content-building
5. That content-building experience is the only model available to otherwise judge a candidate's worthiness

A poor contribution history might apply to a new editor with very little experience at all, but to say that even some of our most senior contributors, who otherwise have an excellent and rounded understanding of how Wikipedia works, is just plain false. Content-building is simply not the only measurement by which to determine a contributor's understanding of Wikipedia, or their worth.

And here is a rhetorical: has there ever been a declined RfA for a contributor who has only contributed to content but never tagged articles, mediated disputes, or otherwise done anything technical or non-content-wise?

"Schrödinger's" editor

Another problem with this argument is very straightforward: if you have exceptional content contributors, why would we want stop their content work instead to spend their time on technical work? Alternatively, if you have exceptional technical contributors who would otherwise easily tame the use of the administration tools, why would you have them contribute content often times only merely to pass an RfA? I for one want people to be doing the job here that they are best at.

It is unreasonable to expect contributors, many of whom volunteer in their free and disposable time, to produce at best quality of both content and technical substance. Much like Schrödinger's cat, it is in most cases impossible to have it both ways for contributors who do not have a full work-week available to contribute. Let's let people contribute in ways they are best at.

The cookie phenomena

Another issue that comes as an unavoidable result of this community policy is that we are essentially fostering an atmosphere where we reward content work. Using adminship as a reward is totally contrary to its stated purpose and further ignores those who contribute in other ways which are equally vital to Wikipedia's survival. To say that content-building is everything lacks comprehension of the big picture, and to only grant adminship for content work makes no sense and insults those who make these tireless contributions in other ways. For some of our most senior and diligent technical contributors, those of whom may have an even better understanding of Wikipedia than we, to reject the notion that they should be administrators simply for lack of content-building is at best dubious.

It's about the tools...I thought?

It is often said that administrators are simply editors with additional tools. If that is so, doesn't it make sense that technical contributions would better demonstrate an editor's ability to use those tools?

Besides: what is the worst that could happen? No admin action is irreversible. No new administrator is unteachable and if they are, that is an entirely different issue which should be handled another way. Wikipedia is essentially a fish bowl where not very much goes unnoticed.

Moreover, we've defined a premise that it's just about the tools but this runs us into another very bad paradox. When it comes to requests for permissions we hold that the contributor should have a need for the permissions that are being requested. The problem is here is that having administrator tools is not required for content building and therefore we are hypocritically ignoring that which we've already defined elsewhere.

Then what is important?

Instead of trying to quantify, calculate, tabulate, slice dice and cube a candidate's contribution history into some kind of number or rating, it is far more appropriate to use a basic set of questions that would far more accurately determine a candidate's worthiness. My basic criteria for adminship requests:

1. Does the candidate have an extensive enough contribution history to adequately ascertain their character?
2. Does the candidate's contribution history demonstrate that they have a satisfactory understanding of Wikipedia policies?
3. Does the candidate's contribution history demonstrate them to be fair, objective, and perhaps most importantly cool and level-headed?
4. Has the candidate demonstrated that they have an adequate understanding of what an administrator is and is not?

See also

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Not now