I've noticed that Wikipedia refers to statuses, such as admin and bureaucrat, as "rights". Why? So much for editing Wikipedia being a privelege and not a right. It is as if it *is* a right for admins.

Think of a better word then. I do know "access levels" has some currency.

"Rights" is more of a technical term for "permissions" or the like in the computer world, isn't it?

I suppose "permissions" or "position" would be better. Also "Administrator", "Bureaucrat", "Arbitrator", and "Steward" are terrible job titles. They make it sound like Wikipedia a cold, heartless bureaucracy.

Would I be cynical in assuming that Wikipedians with "bits" are rather attached to the notion of rights?

I never even heard the term "bits" until Wikipedia. Is that a common term in computer science?

If I had heard "bit" anywhere else, I would have assumed it was a gang term for "gun" like "piece."

In what sense? Bits are spoken of a lot in computer science. They are the whole point in some sense. But the usage at Wikipedia is simply local idiom, probably following a schema in some database that records what people can and can not do.



"Ironically, that is not far from the truth."

It's a common term in computer science; the sysop bit. It refers to a literal 'bit' (binary digit) in a register in a database table. There are other bits for other functions (Reviewer, rollback, etc) and they're all contained in the one record. 'Flipping a bit' in the record enables/disables the feature.

Hell, I never used the word "notable" in any of my writing until Wikipedia.

Responsibilities.

They do exercise "rights" amongst the inner circles ... though I'd rather call them the 'sooper-powers' of their MMORPG knowledge game ... but have little thoughts to their responsibilities. All part of a greater malaise in society today.

There is a lot to the choice of language, the greatest misleading misnomer being "admin". That was a very poor decision as it confers power over others (to be abuse) and superiority ... janitor is better.

They should have chosen role names from academia/publishing rather then Nerdsville World Domination, Inc.

It's just another case of using "computer" terminology like "rights/permissions" and "bit". On multi user time sharing computers an "administrator" (sometimes called "root" or "sysop" depending on the type of system) is a user who has more privileges then other users because he needs them to do his job. On most unix type systems, privileged users were members of the "wheel" group which is where "wheel war" came from.

I never liked the term "janitor" very well because it suggests that someone who can push a button and make hours of someone's hard work go away or stop someone from editing is no different then the guy who sweeps the server room floor.

I'm not disputing that, but it's interesting to see that the phrase was used in a different way in a 1979 newspaper, which while it doesn't pre-date Unix, it does just barely pre-date the mention of Unix in newspapers.

Well, if the shoe fits.

Wikipedia sprang out of nerd culture and has never effectively separated itself from that. It has never adopted the kind of culture that a broad-based and inclusive global project ought to have. It's inclusive in form, but exclusive in content. That's probably the main reason why the project has stagnated over the last few years.

The term "wheel wars" originated at Stanford, which was dominated through from the late 1960s through the late 1970s by the TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 operating systems. The admin bit on TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 was called the "wheel bit", probably by reference to the railroad-era term "big wheel" (the driving wheels on a locomotive and by analogy the person in charge).

A certain amount of back-formation occurred in an early version of the jargon file when someone tried to claim that "wheel wars" referred to those upper-echelon people who had wheels on their chairs, but that never rang true and has largely disappeared. Then there's this.

"Wheel" was never used on Bell Labs Unix as a privileged group -- that usage arrived much later, probably as part of the BSD releases.

I vote that "bits" is the wrong word to use for whatever magical Fairy Powers admins etc. have, computer
technology and jargon notwithstanding.

A more descriptive and all-round better word would be "twits".
Or maybe "twats".

And "rights" is absolutely wrong for that crowd. If they have "rights" over me, to ban and purge me from their little purgatory,
do I have "rights" to pound Jimbo's face into hamburger? How do I get such "rights"? Ask the Arbcom ninnies for them? Give the WMF
$10 million, whereupon Jimbo will come to my house and lie down on my sofa, waiting for me to punch him? What is the Price of Wales?

(jesus, Awbrey, your disease is spreading.)

In keeping with wikipedia's mmorpg nature, "game master", and "clan" would be more apt

Citizendium uses the term "Constables" for its equivalent of "Administrators." "Constable" sounds too authoritarian, though. I picture some U.S. Wild West sheriff like Doc Holliday or Wyatt Earp going around town pistol-whipping editors.

Quite. Fact is I can't think of any title which wouldn't become synonymous with "pretentious douche-bag" within a few short years of use. Words tend to follow their referents.

My ∀× favorite would have to be Michael Keaton as Constable Dogberry.

Sorry, couldn't find a clip right off, except for some Chinese ones that are blocked.

Couple of flash-by's here —

www.cinemagia.ro/trailer/much-ado-about-nothing-mult-zgomot-pentru-nimic-4682/

Jon

it makes sense to me

far more sense than referring to them as "janitors", as Mr. Ritzman noted.

Wikia used to a "janitor" right / group. It was basically Jack Phoenix and other vandal fighters. Jack Phoenix is now a Wikia critic.

"editors with benefits" - funny, I'd never heard the term "friends with benefits till a few months ago and now....

And since when has it been a "privilege" to edit Wikipedia FFS!

The Wikimedia Foundation, or whatever they call themselves, are privileged to have the input of editors who freely give up their time for the benefit of the project. The "privilege" is all theirs, not ours.

Strangely I agree. For a project that wants to embrace everyone who can write and knows some stuff, it has a dreadful cultish "language" that you are required to learn.

They speak about welcoming and not biting newbies, but new users are more likely to be put off by the Byzantine nomenclature than someone writing something sharp on the talk page.

I doubt one could come up with worse nerdish rankings for job titles unless one used Starfleet Officer ranks! Can one imagine Facebook requiring people to learn such nonsense to participate? (Having said that, Citizendium with its "constables" is mildly more scary.)

"Admin" ought to be "sysop" or "mod" - which is what most website have, and it readily understandable. "Bureaucrats" - ought to be "senior moderators" or something that has an innate logic to the title. "Oversighter" is perhaps the worst and most sinister sounding of the lot.

Huh. That blog entry of his was very interesting to me.

Y'know who else spent an inordinate amount of time on ArmchairGM, as a high-ranking user?
A college student named Dan Tylicki. Better known today as Arbcom member Wizardman (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Whose ass did he kiss?