On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Charles Matthews wrote:
CM> James Marshall wrote
CM>
CM>
CM> > But I have to respectfully disagree with both of you here-- do you really
CM> > want to forbid newbies from contributing to anything controversial?
CM>
CM> No. Where you went wrong - i.e. put yourself in a false position -
CM> was to persist in editing. You may not have known what rule you were
CM> infringing, but there is a rule. You were then blocked, I assume for
CM> 24 hours, which except for Wikiholics is hardly the end of the world.
CM> You don't have to like it.
You don't have to take an abrasive tone, Charles. I've asked you before.
No, I don't have to like it, but if newbies don't like their experience,
they won't come back. Which may be just fine with some people here, but
would be a great loss for a project like Wikipedia.
I don't know what you mean by "put [myself] in a false position". ???
If I was wrong to persist in editing, why weren't the others wrong to
persist in their DESTRUCTIVE editing? If I was blocked, why weren't they
blocked? I tried to discuss it, and they didn't. I did no worse than
them at any point, and they are supposed to be the experienced users,
people who are supposed to know what they're doing.
If I did do something "wrong", then I sure as hell don't know how I could
have known, especially given the examples set by the others. And I think
your logic that puts blame on me and not the others is pretty circuitous
reasoning.
Of course the block isn't the end of the world. It can be very annoying,
if I came to make a contribution, FOLLOWED the rules, and then I have to
remember to come back a day or more later. Worse, I'm given no clue why I
was banned, and what to do to prevent an immediate ban the next time.
Why should I spend my good time making contributions when they're just
going to be erased for no apparent reason?
I'm not trying to dwell on this one block I got. My point is not to
whine. I'm trying to point out how part of the system has a problem that
could be improved (i.e. that some sysops abuse their power, and some
sysops don't even act like good users, much less sysops; also, that
newbies are sometimes treated harshly for no good reason).
CM> What I'm pointing out here is that there is a learning curve. The
CM> point about going straight for the most contentious topics is that the
CM> learning curve is going to be very steep. One can figure out why this
CM> must be. _Every_ non-wiki technical person I have explained wiki to,
CM> has explained back 'can't possibly work'. They are confident that a
CM> free-for-all in editing must be a disaster. Wikipedia shows they are
CM> missing something. They are missing the community self-policing
CM> effect. If a wiki works - not all do - the policing of graffiti on
CM> [[Ronald Reagan]] is going to be effective.
Well, it obviously wasn't effective here-- what was removed wasn't
graffiti. The approach taken by Texture and Oberiko-- authority-oriented,
use of force over discussion, removing rather than adding, insults, lack
of explanation-- seems quite in contrast to the stated values of
Wikipedia; I don't see how it can lead to good articles. (The Reagan
article, for example, is very one-sided and omits important facts and
viewpoints.) And I still maintain the sentence they wanted is more POV
than my modification, obvious by simple boolean logic (though I'm willing
to discuss it, of course).
In case you don't know, Wikipedia is not the first collaborative
collection of knowledge where people have to negotiate
mutually-satisfactory content. I've worked on RFC's, for example. I also
set up a similar (much simpler) Web-based system back around 1997.
Usenet FAQs used to be done through discussion of diverse viewpoints to a
negotiated product, and I assume they still are. I agree that some
Wikipedia-specific learning will be involved, but some of the hardest
parts have been dealt with elsewhere.
CM> Now your version of the learning curve may seem to be 'your rights and
CM> how to get them'. The system is set up so this is secondary to
CM> 'freedom to edit'. Has to be that way. You'd do better to learn
CM> something about editing, in the shallower waters.
Please don't put words in my mouth, Charles. My purpose here is not to
establish my "rights" or whatever you mean by that. I was only trying to
contribute, and then when the editing social system obviously screwed up
(by banning me in the way it happened), I was led to a page that mentioned
this email list. I thought I'd give this avenue a chance instead of just
blowing it off altogether.
Funny that you say the primary value is "freedom to edit". That's what
I'm saying, too. Why don't you think that includes my "freedom to
edit"?
What do you think I need to learn about editing? (I've edited books, and
written content used by millions of people and many schools. I assume you
mean Wikipedia-specific editing.)
Sorry, people, if I'm sounding harsh; this is just getting frustrating.
I'm not one to peacefully suffer unjustified shit sent in my direction.
I've been continuing this thread because other people said that it would
be constructive to Wikipedia to do so, and I've tried to keep it
constructive. Then, when I did what was asked (took many hours), people
have criticized me for it. I thought Wikipedia was a neat idea, so I
thought I'd contribute as my friend suggested. Then, after I was banned
in the manner I was, I thought it was worthwhile to try to help fix the
infrastructure. But I'm really starting to wonder why I should spend my
time doing so, and if any good can come of it (I know some of you would
want me to stay, and others want me to leave).
Or should I just learn to ignore the postings of some individuals? I can
do that easily enough and not get upset.
I was trying to make this thread focused on the issues and not on me;
sorry if it's been too much about me.
A new post just came through-- thank you, Denni, for your comments and
support.
Best wishes,
James
............................................................................
James Marshall james(a)jmarshall.com Berkeley, CA @}-'-,--
"Teach people what you know."
............................................................................