Additionally, administrators can actually delete pages. We probably don't want to do much of this, because in general, a redirect is better than a deletion! In that way, old links from search engines, etc., still work.
I, Jimbo Wales, propose that I should give out the administrator password fairly freely. People who have been around for a week or two, contributing to the pages in a useful way, should have access to this. Indeed, the only reason not to give it out willy-nilly is that someone really could mess things up. (For example, by renaming every page to 'Bob'.)
I think, as long as someone has shown good will (and that means pretty much everybody who is a regular visitor) should have it.
Are there any thoughts/objections to this?
(Also, I think that the admin password would give us a quick way to let regulars in to edit, while blocking others, if we come under attack from spammers or vandals at some point.)
The "editor" level currently has very few extra powers, which include:
Note that each level can have multiple passwords, which can be individually revoked. This means that you could have a relatively public editor password and other less-public passwords (for major contributors, for instance). If the public password is abused, it could be revoked without affecting the less-public passwords. (For Wikipedia I might suggest/code other systems for managing access, like allowing admins to simply grant/revoke editor-level access without using a password.)
The main problem I (CliffordAdams) see is that one could cause severe disruption with some of the admin-level commands. Features like locking pages or banning networks might be controversial.
I think it would be better to give relatively free editor-level access, and possibly move some functions from the admin to the editor level. My suggestions are:
Personally, I think "admin" level access should be viewed as a community service rather than a reward. Indeed, if there are enough volunteers, I think there should only be a few permanent admins and a larger number of limited-time admins, rotating every few months.
For renaming and deletion, I'm considering a new feature to let anyone suggest changes or deletions, which could be quickly confirmed by any admin user. In the meantime, I think it would be best to restrict these features to admins only. A public page for rename/deletion suggestions could be established, and admins could frequently cut/paste suggestions from that page into the rename/deletion form. --CliffordAdams
I think there's a bit of a practical concern in that, possibly, some people might be made admins who fail to understand or agree with whatever community standards there are--and proceeds to rename pages and otherwise wreak havoc, not out of maliciousness but cluelessness, hubris, egotism, and the like. If you've been online for long enough, and I know you all have, you know that this sort of problem is practically inevitable. I don't know that we need to do anything about this potential problem other than what Cliff already proposed, i.e., assign admin responsibilities only to people who have been with us for a month and have created a lot of good articles. Maybe I'd add the simple caveat that we should state that one shouldn't expect to get admin privileges after a certain amount of work--in other words, it's not automatic. Something along those lines, anyway. --Larry Sanger
As Wikipedia grows, we will have more people with wildly different ideas of how things should be done. Even now, with our very small number of regulars, we've had some pretty intense conflicts. Right now, everyone has a similar and useful set of powers; we are all able to create, edit and redirect pages, as well as the all-important ability to restore previous versions. The power to completely delete pages (along with the revision history) is very dangerous, and is something like giving everyone nuclear weapons. Once one is launched, everyone launches their own, and any damage is largely irreversable.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)