With the recent staff promotion and RfS discussions, I've been thinking about how we might revamp the moderator position and acknowledgement. I had a discussion with SCM and JBed about it on IRC, and thought I should post my musings on it here. The key aims of this revamp would be to distinguish moderator and acknowledgement as two different roles/achievements, and to emphasise the role of staff members.
The current state of moderator and acknowledgement Currently, moderator is given more as a reward for users seen as deserving than as a set of tools and a position for an editor to effectively use. It's almost a rite of passage: do some work for a few months to a year, then get promoted to moderator. This work isn't always in the mainspace, either: there are a number of mods who were promoted primarily for their work with policy, the IRC, walkthroughs etc., further confusing the role. Despite it being a staff position, there are significant differences in how we treat moderators and their promotion. Acknowledgement is in a terrible state. People who receive it fall into three main categories: former staff members, those who have done enough work to be staff members but do not want the position and those who aren't quite deserving of moderator for some reason. It's basically seen as an inferior consolation prize, rather than something which is worth achieving in itself. There are no clear guidelines for achieving acknowledgement. Finally, there is confusion as to whether acknowledged users are staff members. The meaning of being a staff member There has been a heavy emphasis on staff members being made mostly to use tools, but I believe we have simplified it too much. Rights do not simply equate to tools, but also the responsibility to use them. Staff members are also expected to be knowledgeable about policy, participate in discussion and be held to a higher standard of behaviour. When we promote a person to staff, we are saying that this user is a person we trust to be a good example as an editor in multiple aspects. Administrators have more tools; thus, they are held to higher standards and have greater responsibility, and it is considered to be a more senior position than moderator. Designers and moderators, likewise, are considered to have more trust given to them than a normal user. Changes to moderator What does this mean for the moderator position? I believe we should modify it so that it better fits the role of a staff position. Like admin, modship should be given to people who have been editing consistently in the mainspace, have good behaviour, participate in discussions and will use the tools. However, the criteria we use will not be as strict or demanding as the ones for being an admin. Moderators are people the wiki community trust to use tools, but don't have the experience/consistency/contributions/desire/behaviour to become an administrator. This means that the position will now be more selective, and not given simply as a reward, but for utility. We may consider given the position more tools to emphasise this. Changes to acknowledgement I would like acknowledgement to be considered as something distinct to moderator - parallel, but not inferior. Acknowledgement would be given as a reward to people who have done excellent work for the wiki, but not in multiple aspects or consistently as a moderator would be expected to do. Examples of this would include:
Acknowledgement therefore takes on much of the "reward" nature that moderator used to have. It recognises major wiki achievements, but as it comes with no tools, it does not carry the responsibility or expectations of a staff position like moderator. This means that acknowledged users will no longer be staff members. They will have a separate page detailing their achievements and a separate badge. What this means for the RfS and promoting pathways When considering nominating a user for moderator, keep these new criteria in mind. Moderator will be more like a "junior admin" position in how it is perceived and achieved. These changes to moderator reinforce the progression of user -> moderator -> administrator, and it is expected that most users will follow this path. However, note that being promoted to moderator is a symbol of trust, consistency and good editing, and it is these qualities which are important. Thus, if one chooses not to be made a moderator, but displays the qualities we are looking for in an administrator, then a nomination to admin straight from user/acknowledged will be considered. Designer is a similar position of trust, and one can be promoted to admin from there. I think nominations for acknowledgement can also be handled by the RfS system, but setting up another page is fine. Current moderators will be grandfathered. TL;DR
Thoughts? | |||
Hm, I'm not sure how much I have to add, but I'll do my best:
And uh, I think that's it? EDIT: Just talked with Yuan on the IRC, and, it's less about making Designer a bridge to Admin and more about making the Mod -> Admin bridge less rigid. That is something I can wholly agree with, so my 3rd point no longer means anything. :D12:50, October 25, 2014 (UTC) | |||