User talk:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content

My thoughts on this essay

1. Agreed, we are indeed here to write an encyclopedia, but one can contribute towards the writing of the encyclopedia without literally writing it. To use an analogy: I go to the supermarket to buy food, not to admire how clean the floors are or how solid the roof is. The shelf stackers and sales assistants are the ones who contribute to the core purpose, but the builders and the janitors don't need to have worked as them to be able to do their jobs.
2. I think this is the most compelling argument, and I can't deny that content creation is useful. That said, you can have an understanding of something without doing it yourself: as you say, you need to know enough, not be a master content creator.
3. Yes, communication is a (perhaps the most) vital skill for an admin. But you can demonstrate communication skills without contributing to articles, and the communication used as an admin is different to that used when writing an article.
4. Not sure what you mean here, are you just saying that content creation is enjoyable? If so, I somewhat agree, but this isn't the case for everyone.
5. I can't deny this point, but I don't see why this is a role for admins, it looks to me like something just for experienced editors to do.
6. Not writing content doesn't mean you don't know anything about it. Copy editing or even just reading can give you an equal feel for content quality. Further, I don't think there is a logical progression between not being highly experienced in the topic of debate and accidentally using ad hominem reasoning.
7. Yes, content creation is nice, but it is not the only way to take a break.

To be clear, I am not in any way arguing against content creation: it is the most important thing after all, and we always need more content creators. I just think that it is not something that is particular to or required for adminship. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 11:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I think I agree with most of this essay, and I would add that another part of the reason why some content creation is expected (for me) is that the autopatrolled flag is included as part of the administrator package. This means that new articles submitted by administrators are exempt from the usual WP:NPP checks based on the understanding that the user has reliably submitted content that doesn't need checking. To non-admins, this flag is normally granted after 25 articles of decent quality, but new administrators often haven't created that many articles (e.g. I still haven't created that many articles). In the past, this has led to problematic mainspace content submitted by administrators go undetected for some time (e.g. this ANI discussion). Mz7 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In reading your essay, I like the fact you said that getting an article to featured status is "hogwash". I think the best sysop editors are people that know the purpose of WP is to shared sourced content and allow other to improve the content with a set criteria. Then there are those whose purpose or getting RFA is to hunt down people who have more then one account and block them whether they vandalise or not. I'll let your edit history do the talking. MightyKid (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts

On the whole I disagree with this essay. There are many jobs that need doing on WP, and some of them (though not content creation) are better done using admin powers. We don't say "this candidate has never worked on copyvio, therefore they won't make a good admin." What's so special about content creation?

But there is a reason for asking would-be admins to jump through the content creation hoop, with a few GAs or the like. I realised this recently, when looking back at something I experienced over ten years ago.

An article on my watchlist had stuff appear on its talk page from an editor who said he we assessing it for GA status. He detailed several minor changes he wanted, that he could have made himself more easily than specifying them. Then he listed several far more serious-looking but incomprehensible things. I thought "this is difficult stuff, way over my head". So apparently did other editors; the only edit made in the next few weeks was from a bot. Then he came back, but with a different username (?), rebuked us for not carrying out his orders, and threatened to close the GA review unless we did what we'd been told. I responded, asking him to clarify his requests. He didn't clarify them, and no-one carried them out. The GA thing was abandoned.

I now suspect that this editor was trying to achieve a GA to add to his list of qualifications to become an admin. But he showed an inability to cooperate with other editors, failed to achieve a GA at least with that article, and (I think) never became an admin. Just as well. The requirement for content creation had done a good job. Maproom (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)