[WikiEN-l] Worthy admins? (was "The userbox fad")

Thu Jan 5 06:06:06 UTC 2006

Chris Jenkinson wrote:

> jayjg wrote:
>
>> Well, that's great, but again, the issue isn't this particular 
>> individual.
>> Rather, this is a symptom:  Why do we have administrators who are 
>> unfamiliar
>> with policy? Why do we have administators who are unwilling to accept
>> community consensus, and, indeed, seem almost unfamiliar with the 
>> concept?
>> Why do we have administrators who think that it is so important to have
>> "fair use" images on userboxes that it is reasonable to completely 
>> ignore
>> any risks of copyright lawsuits against Wikipedia?
>>
>> Those are the issues here, and your having a chat with your friend isn't
>> going to fix the root cause.
>
> Well, I talked with Karmafist for about an hour trying to persuade him 
> to stop his actions on this matter. Unfortunately it didn't go 
> anywhere, but perhaps I can add some insight based on the discussion 
> as to why he is acting the way he does. 

I sti;; read Jay's comment as directed to the policy level rather than 
the individual user level.  A good admin should be able to distinguish 
between these levels.

> Firstly, one of the things about the internet is its anonymity which 
> helps lower the barrier for social interaction. People with autism and 
> related psychological conditions such as Asperger's syndrome tend to 
> gravitate towards it. One reason I think for his actions is due to the 
> fact that he has Asperger's which means he finds social interaction 
> difficult and because of what he sees as hostile comments tends to 
> cloud his judgement of the entirety of the group who hold similar 
> viewpoints - for example, he has had bad experiences with Kelly 
> Martin, who holds that fair use images shouldn't be in user/template 
> namespace. Unfortunately this clouds his perception of others who hold 
> similar viewpoints on fair use, even those with who he has got on 
> perfectly fine otherwise (guilt by association). 

I agree that people with conditions such as Asperger's will tend to 
gravitate here.  The anonymity can help them to feel that they can 
contribute on an equal footing with everyone else.  The downside is that 
in return for being treated like everyone else, they must act like 
everyone else.   The Wikipedian community cannot make particular 
allowances for these conditions when to do so would conflict with a 
person's anonymity.

> Part of the reason he is re-adding them is because people like Kelly 
> Martin are removing them - due to Kelly's actions which he sees as a 
> breach of policy and process (concepts which he agrees with), and due 
> to the fact his opinion has been ignored or dismissed by some, he 
> feels he has no other way to "be heard" than to breach policy himself 
> (a fact he fully admits) and just undo the removal of the images. This 
> scenario has arisen due to a lack of communication between both 
> "sides", a lack of presuming good faith by all and temporary gaps in 
> civility. We're all guilty of it. As they say, you can do nice things 
> to someone 99 times and be an arsehole once, and their opinion of you 
> will be that you're an arsehole. 

When otherwise normal little kids use this technique, and it works it 
becomes a learned strategy that they take into later life.

> So what can we do to stop situations like this from occurring?
>
> Obviously we all need to be civil, presume good faith and listen to, 
> and respond to other's opinions, so they don't feel ignored. Being 
> ignored is more socially exclusive than being told you are wrong, and 
> for people who are not as naturally talented at communications with 
> others, who tend to be more common on Wikipedia and other online 
> communities than in offline communities, this is definitely a common 
> problem. It's much easier to ignore someone on the internet than in 
> 'real life'. We also need to be more apologetic when people 
> misinterpret, answer every message we get, even if just to say "thanks 
> for the message". We need to increase our communication with each 
> other and to make it more friendly. 

The sentiments there are good but not always practical.  I can get far 
more attention with a pointed one-liner than with a long detailed 
analysis of a situation.  That has nothing to do with the validity of my 
assessment.  When it comes to answering messages one needs to be 
selective.  Answering every message can be a physicla impossibility.

Ec