On 25/10/06, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I find this sometimes myself, depending on the topic.
It's not so
much that process is bad, but for every ten bits of process there
should be one bit devoted solely to being nice to others and helping
them work out better ways to express themselves, rather than slapping
people down or admonishing them to follow guidelines.
Absolutely true.
I'm constantly saddened by the way Wikipedians in general tend to
focus on procedure above all else, often sacrificing basic civility
and tact in its favour. A good example would be WP:RFAF (failed admin
candidacies), in which a depressingly large number of unlikely
nominations for adminship - usually from people who simply have less
than a thousand or so edits - result in pile-on opposition, with only
a few users offering moral support and guidance.
It is, frankly, depressing - and not just because it results in so
many violations of WP:BITE. I don't believe the problem can be solved,
not even by altering process, because it stems from a basic failure to
empathise with other users: it happens in every online community I've
ever been a part of, and I can see no reason why it would cease in the
foreseeable future. It is, as far as I can tell, an ugly fact of life.
-David
On 10/25/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/10/06, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/25/06, Mark Williamson
<node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have to agree with a lot of what you have
said.
I still use en.wp as a reference (sometimes), but I rarely edit it. My
reason now isn't the same as the one I used to have (busy with other
language wikis), but rather, simply that I find the climate to be too
hostile and too toxic for me to make any real editing progress.
I find this sometimes myself, depending on the topic. It's not so
much that process is bad, but for every ten bits of process there
should be one bit devoted solely to being nice to others and helping
them work out better ways to express themselves, rather than slapping
people down or admonishing them to follow guidelines.
Indeed.
The good
admins are getting discouraged and leaving one by one, and
the bad admins are continuing in their horribleness.
I'm not sure about this; it always seems this way. But some good and
subtle ones are discouraged; and many who are intolerant of criticism
and certain they have the only solutions remain.
Agreed.
en.wp has
even gotten to the point where to be a member of certain
sites critical of Wikipedia is somehow bad, and to be a *sysop* at
them is even a sort of bannable offense (notably Hivemind, Wikitruth,
ED).
Is it a bannable offense? There should be a special award for people
who are effectively critical of Wikipedia.
Well, after ED posted an article about User:MONGO which he thoroughly
disliked, he started his campaign against it. Wikitruth and other
similar projects have long been viewed as not good because they were
mostly started by banned users.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Chicks dig undertakers, right?