[WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

Sat Jan 7 18:55:29 UTC 2006

On 06/01/06, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know
>> something about policy, they *are* doing harm.  They are wasting the time
>> and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the goal
>> of the project.
>
> This is one of the worst things I have heard said in the context of
> the wikipedia. I politely ask you to rethink and restate this, as I
> assume you did not mean this.

I think I broadly understand the intended meaning.

There are policies on Wikipedia that are granite, bedrock; that we
write from a neutral point of view, or that we are an enyclopedia and
not an academic journal or discussion board.

There are policies on Wikipedia that are a matter of solid consensus;
our image-licensing policies, or our (admittedly confusing) stance on
What Dialect Of English To Use.

Then there are policies - well, guidelines - that are fluid, amenable;
that we abbreviate US as "U.S.", or the minutae of the protection
policy, or whether or not we italicise certain kinds of terms, or
obscure naming conventions, or... oh, you could name thousands.

And, to confuse matters, we talk about them all as "policy", hence
confusion like this.

So, our new guy comes along, and decides he wants to debate policy.
Good-good; there'll certainly be someone willing to argue with him,
whatever side he chooses - three geeks, one place, four opinions. And
he may certainly have a new and innovative viewpoint on his topic.

But if he's going to argue over whether we're an encyclopedia, or
whether we should search-and-replace every instance of "petrol" with
"gasoline"... then *absolutely nothing* will ever be gained by this
debate. We're set in our ways, we're not going to change because one
persuasive guy comes along and suggests it, though he may be damn good
at doing so.

(Indeed, on things like NPOV, we wouldn't change if one _city_ of
persuasive people came along. You get the idea.)

It is good to discuss things. But discussing something that cannot and
will not be changed is, to my mind at least, a bit of a waste of time.
I'm all for debating political issues, but I confess to getting a bit
tetchy when someone tries to debate gravity with me.

Anyone remember the guy who wrote to us - it might have been
wikipedia-l, come to think of it - demanding that we set up an English
English language wikipedia? Absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing
with him - it just used up the time of a lot of people, without doing
anything beneficial, and pissed a few people off. (Goodness knows I
was one)

Arguing over something immutable - doesn't help anyone. Arguing over
something we are willing to change, from a new viewpoint? Can
certainly be helpful.

I hope that's the point Jay meant to make, and I hope if so it seems clearer...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk