On 6/26/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
The issue of editors who don't have a clue
about the topic can be a
problem, but one which is distinct from having no clue about the
project. The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing
things that it becomes authoritarian. While we cannot accept every
piece of idiocy that is added to an article, we still need to make room
for new ideas, and, even more importantly, newcomers need to feel
welcome and a part of the decision making process.
This is much in accordance with what I am inadequately expressing. A
couple of times here people have used "assume good faith" not in cause
of civility, but in what amounts to making statements about human
nature. In that wise we cannot afford it; a more realistic level of
pessimism is called for.
"The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing things
that it becomes authoritarian. "
This seems to be a problem with some projects and not others. With
the botanists any article is more likely to be torpedoes from within
due to the non-authoritarian nature of the project, or lack of accord
among members on fundamental issues. I don't think this is really a
problem so much as it is a reflection of the science and the exciting
times we live in as botanists today.
I've run into a couple of projects where the editors are locked into
their way of doing things, even when it is not WP:MOS (and to the
detriment of the reader), or not particularly useful.
Again, botany sets its own MOS, bu that is due to the problems
mentioned in the first paragraph.
I still find it much more useful to ask someone knowledgable on a
topic about an article's overall relevancy to Wikipedia, than to use
google or something to find information about which I know
nought--again, it removes some of the potential for idiocy (AfD:Rock
climbing). It seems strange to start with the presumption of bad
faith from those who know a topic. I don't want junkie plant articles
on Wikipedia--and we're very short-handed in this area. What's so
difficult about asking the plant folks if an article belongs or not?
(I don't think I've ever seen a plant article up for deletion,
though--everyone knows animals, not plants.)
KP