User:Cncmaster/RfA Criteria/Content Creation
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
I do not understand why having a ton of DYKs, Good Articles, Featured Articles, or other content recognition is important for RfA candidates. In the four years that I have been on Wikipedia, I have seen very little to no correlation between writing/contributing significantly to articles and being a capable administrator. I'm more worried about how well a candidate has a grasp of when/when not an article should be deleted, which can usually be evidenced by an extensive history of successful CSD, AFD (voting), and/or PROD tagging, which is although sometimes accompanied by some article writing, is not always. Besides, many administrators who have a history of content contributing tend to deviate from that when they are promoted.
Far too many people support/oppose some admin candidates solely on the grounds of content contributions, which closely resonates with the attitude present in some college admissions offices, who accept/deny potential students based upon weird measures of extracurricular activities (which I am comparing to content contributions in this case) that really don't pertain to college (admin) potential at all. The major difference between an RfA and a college admissions office is that space is limited at the college, so extracurricular activities must be measured and factored, whereas there is no cap on the number of administrators on Wikipedia. This dumbfounds me whenever I think about it. Why measure something that doesn't pertain to admin potential to filter out perfectly capable admins when there is no cap to the number of administrators? It has never made logical sense to me, nor do I think it ever will.
My own experiences, rant-y and not required reading.
|
|---|
|
Perhaps I have this viewpoint because I am a shit-tier content contributor myself. I have considered an RfA, but I know that with no article authorship or significant content contributions, I have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. I find it somewhat embarrassing being unable to write any decent content; after all, I've been told by more than one editor that DYKs and GAs are "easy to get" and that "they are a vital indicator of one's devotion to Wikipedia." Source: Various IRC Chats and Email Exchanges It becomes more disillusioning when those who oppose over content creation have done very little themselves. Seeing oppose pile-ons over trivial and stupid shit in more than one RfA has also made me disillusioned about the entire RfA process over time. The civility police collective has struck at RfAs more than once. Although some candidates do have legitimate issues with civility that they are mentally unable to overcome, this RfA in particular was deeply saddening for me to look over after the dust had settled. Not only did it harshly criticize a good vandal fighter for "not being nice enough to the vandals and trolls," it drove him off the wiki for a few months. The subsequent pity-party held on his talk page by disheartened supporters (and opposers) exposed much of the hypocrisy that I oft-see in many !votes at RfAs, mainly in the opposes. HJ's closing comments summed up the general disappointment I had in that disaster of an RfA perfectly. |