Dabljuh wrote:
Obviously, this is just a disruptive user disappointed
he could
not get Wikipedia to work the way he wanted.
Oh, 6000 mainspace edits. That of course changes everything.
Obviously, this is a responsible editor and we must investigate
why he is disappointed with working in Wikipedia.
And that's right after I point out (and get ad hominem'd for it)
that social networking is more important than having a high
edit count, and that having a high edit count is more important
than being a responsible journalist / scholar observing policy,
when it comes to being successful inside Wikipedia. I.e. being
able to contribute to the "Encyclopedia" without being harassed
or even forcefully removed by powerful factions that happen to
share a different POV.
To the "upper management" of Wikipedia:
Please, take these problems serious and act. Not doing so will
simply make Wikipedia lose more and more good editors.
Huh? How is accepting that those with high edit counts (and thus more
experience editing) are more likely to know what they're talking about
than someone who just arrived yesterday making "social networking" more
important than writing the encyclopaedia? Believe me, if someone had
6000 edits in userspace and nothing else, nobody would respect him or
her, but if the 6000 edits are well-distributed, it's a likely indicator
that the fellow either knows what he/she is talking about. (It's never
an infallible one, however; some of our worst POV warriors, and of
course edit warriors, will have high edit counts.)
And do define "responsible journalist / scholar". If you arrive at
Wikipedia with preconceptions of how things should be done from past
experience, and don't adjust these preconceptions, then you will of
course have a difficult time fitting in, especially when our editorial
norms are established for good reasons.
John