[WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

Sun Jun 18 20:51:08 UTC 2006

From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey
Message-ID: <4494D0B6.ED03BE97 at att.net>

An attempt at translation:

> it is no longer worth the headache trying to
> write quality articles or to improve articles
> in this ennvironment.

"Wikipedia doesn't suit me."

> but i would like to post some of my observations
> in hopes that it might help out somehow, someday.

"Because..."

> WP is a meeting ground for several types of people.
> the main types i've observed fall under these heads:
>
> 1.  accurate reporters (AR's).
> 2.  responsible scholars (RS's).
> 3.  infantile vandals (IV's).
> 4.  expert disrupters (ED's)

"There are a number of types of people on it I don't
like."

> in the present state of WP, the rules in practice 
> and the prevailing 
> attitudes of admins
> are all skewed in favor of IV's and ED's, 
> while the AR's and RS's don't 
> stand a chance.

"And the admins are to blame."

> by "rules in practice" i mean the way that 
> policies and guidelines 
> actually get enforced.
> the sad thing is that the "rules in principle" 
> state all the right 
> ideas, but people who
> are born and bred to check facts don't have a 
> chance against puppet 
> mobs of pseudo-newbies,
> who seem bent on nothing short of making the 
> world safe for their 
> current state of ignorance.
> "assuming good faith" and "not biting newcomers" 
> are so much easier for 
> admins to parrot
> that it has rendered them the most naive dupes 
> of expert disrupters who 
> have learned how
> it easy it is to exploit their naivete.  in short, 
> WP is like email 
> before virus protection.

"Because I don't like how admins operate and the rules
don't work."

> this is one of the biggest reasons that WP's 
> reputation in responsible 
> communities has gone from "not especially 
> reliable source" (NERS) to "dump of 
> popular errors" (DOPE).
> it is my impression from my acquaintances that 
> more and more 
> responsible scholars who buy
> into the ideals of WP in the beginning quickly 
> find themselves disamyed 
> by the realities,
> and just go way quietly after a short while of 
> seeing their efforts go 
> to waste here.

"And I don't like how Wikipedia works generally."

> i really do hope that something that lives up 
> to the stated ideals and 
> policies of WP
> does come into existence someday, so i will try 
> to put aside my present 
> discouragement
> and focus on the kinds of experiences that can 
> be converted into 
> constructive critique.

"Although it would be nice if it worked how I thought
it was going to work, and I'm in a bad modd because it
doesn't."

---

> the resistance to facing unpleasant realities 
> is perfectly human and thorougly understandable, 
> but real situations do not improve
> unless people squarely face the gap between ideals 
> and realities. i am not such a newbie on planet 
> earth that i have not faced constant disappointment 
> and near-utter discouragement on a recurring basis, 
> and i have survived long enough on
> planet earth to know that there is nothing for it,
> when the transient pain has passed, but to salvage
> what lessons can be learned from the experience.

"You may not like what I have to say, but I'm entitled
to say it."

> so, yes, it will be necessary in this 
> parting feedback
> to recount a number of negative turns of events that
> i have experienced during my sojourn in wikipedia.
> but the purpose of examining these incidentals
> is to find some means of learning from them.

"I haven't enjoyed my time with Wikipedia and here is
why."

---

> i will try to stay focused on the task at hand,
> which is simply to provide clear feedback that
> might become useful at some time in the future
> toward the actualization of a worthy objective
> with which i continue to feel a certain degree
> of sympathy, even though my personal resources
> on its behalf are approaching final exhaustion.

"I'm fed up, but want to give my reasons".

> accesses of strong feelings as i lay out this
> narrative
> are probably inevitable, and defensive reactions
> on the
> part of some of its readers are quite natural
> and to be
> expected, especially with those who share a 
> strong bond
> of common identity with each other and the 
> ideals of WP.
> indeed, until just a few days ago, i was 
> commonly found
> to be voicing many of the same apologies and 
> excuses to
> my acquaintances with regard to the rough-
> jeweled state
> and the promise of WP, so i know most of these 
> by heart.

"Wikipedia editors tend to band together."

> i do not know if the reputation of WP could
> be diminished 
> any further among the acquaintances that i
> have discussed 
> it with, but i do know that whether its
> reputation improves 
> or worsens, it will be through the acts of
> the WP community 
> as a whole, and not through my words.

"My friends agree Wikipedia isn't much good, and only
Wikipedia's editors can change that opinion."

I'll have a crack at the next email in the sequence
when I get it. I've often had to work on
machine-translated words, like Mr Awbrey is posting
here, so I'm pretty good at getting the gist, although
it's more useful to have the originsl to work from as
well.

Mr Awbrey: please will you email this to me in your
original language and I will try to find a translator
who can help with the details. Thank you.

->REDVERS

___________________________________________________________ 
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html