Daniel Mayer wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>For those worried that "firefighter"
tends to imply
>that a wave of newbies is a problem (a raging fire),
>just remember that it was originally the Wikipedia "militia".
The fires created are not the newbies themselves, but
the damage a small part
of them do (either intentional or not).
So we don't think of them as fires but rather as potential arsonists?
I don't mean to say that the term /is/ inherently insulting,
but any term that suggests that newbies may cause trouble (and they may)
will be capable of being taken the wrong way.
(I personally find "firefighter" acceptable.)
"Guide" is still too paternal for my
taste. In my part of the world at least, firefighters play the role of
general emergency personell (providing extraction and medical assistance at
car crashes and such) and only on relatively rare occasions fight actual
fires. IMO that makes them a very positive symbol.
"Wikipedia emergency personnel"! ^_^
-- Toby