Wikipedia:Redundancy is good redundancy

This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion.

When it comes to the behind-the-scenes administration of Wikipedia, redundancy is good. Just as RAID arrays and similar redundant systems exist in the computer field to allow for the possibility of a hardware failure, so should the same principle apply to Wikipedia when it comes to editors. In the Wikipedia system, having multiple editors that perform the same task is useful because it allows for the possibility that one or more editors leave the project, temporarily or otherwise.

Why do we have 1000+ administrators or 20+ bureaucrats? Just in case some of them are temporarily indisposed. Redundancy allows systems to operate more efficiently by allowing for unforeseen circumstances. Computer hardware is not immune to failure, and neither is Wikipedia.

Logically, we can condense this to the following principle: redundancy should be sought in any situation where there are few negatives to having it. Or, more simply, redundancy is good.

This may discount the reasoning "we have enough X (admins, bureaucrats, mediators...); more X are not needed." It does not necessarily discount the reasoning "we have plenty of X, so we can afford to be selective", when combined with a reason not to promote.

Redundancy engenders aggregation, and aggregation is one of the main principles on which open source and other collaborative projects such as Wikipedia are based. Aggregation permits to build on the efforts of others by tapping into the wisdom of the community rather than the wisdom of the few.