I'm sorry to have to say this ;-) but I agree with John.
Communities resent it when outsiders tell them what to do unless they
have specifically asked for that outsider's opinion. Communities build
upon more than mere logic, but also on trust and familiarity; it's what
"paying one's dues" is all about. I may vehemently disagree with
certain of John's positions, but I have a sense of knowing what to
expect. The bare right to do something is just a tool; it's an entry
point into the community. Your suggestions may be perfectly correct,
and indeed some of the observations may carry with them a clarity
unencumbered by the community's prejudices, but that's not enough to
ensure that the community adopts your ideas.
When an outsider becomes insistent on promoting his views his
credibility and that of his views are diminished. He has no stake in
the outcome, and can safely watch the results from outside, and in the
event that the attempt to adopt those ideas fails he can retreat into
the very safe excuse that "they misinterpreted my ideas."
Your idea to create better co-operation among various wikis is
commendable, but your means of promotion is not designed to draw
supporters.
Ec
John Lee wrote:
How are you hurt if you don't come out and admit
you don't edit
Wikipedia much, if at all? We won't hurt you. We're just curious. We
aren't judging your proposals based on who they're coming from, but if
they sound ridiculous, then the way we look at them does depend on who
you are. If it was, say, any known active Wikipedian, then we'd know
for sure that something has to be corrected. But musings from someone
who is not active on Wikipedia are likely to be way off.
From your postings, I think we've already established you aren't an
active editor - that's okay with me. But you should know that trying
to cover this up will only hurt your reputation instead of enhancing it.
NSK wrote:
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 03:24, Delirium
wrote:
it's natural that your ideas
will be treated more skeptically than those of someone who is
demostrably familiar with the community
I think it would be a good idea if people could examine ideas and
decide on their usefulness without considering who proposed these ideas.
Consider for example that it is possible that a well-known community
member may say something wrong and a newcomer can say something useful.
So, although some people may be somewhat sceptical seeing a
non-familiar name in their To: headers, they should examine the ideas
and not the poster; or at least this is my opinion.