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