Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-4242472-20140816221856

Lately there has been a lot of arguing going on and in several cases there are incidents of newer users vs. old users and newer users vs. admins. A recent suggestion of new admins was turned down by several people on the basis that we have enough. Fair enough, this isn't a big wiki so we do not need a lot of administrators to run it. But for a long time now there's also been accusations of an admin hierarchy existing. I wouldn't say its groundless (people wouldn't make the accusation for so long otherwise) but it is one of the bigger issues in circulation.

The wiki itself is getting old, coming on six to eight years I think. But having the same core admins for so long can have negative long term effects as so far it seems current positions are more-or-less permanent unless someone steps down. What I am proposing is that perhaps we start cycling admins based on value; Administrators are selected and kept in the position based on their activity, behaviour and competence among other factors. It keeps the admin group fresh, alert, approachable and effective and newer users who come on and over time present valued skills aren't forever excluded from being one because more senior users got the position first. Saying you are a moderator for a community group can also be positive for one's CV as employers like seeing interviewees who can show they have experience in leadership and responsibility roles.

In terms of selection I'm not against the idea of people volunteering or being selected by the site's bureaucrats; its worked so far and we've gained a pretty solid admin team out of it. All this should be a community decision since at the end of the day, it's how the community should work - as a group of people working together. We've built something great here, let's not destroy it by a fabricated class division. 