On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 13:08, Ram Shankar Yadav
<ramshankaryadav@gmail.com> wrote:
This is exactly the kind of cluelessness i am referring to. The [[WP:COMPETENCE]] exists exactly for this purpose - we dont want "kids", who will "mess up" by "drawing mangoes and bananas" here. We want atleast semi competent, interested people who can act responsibly.
- First of all stop playing those policy games, before looking at [[WP:COMPETENCE]] I would rather say to have a look at [[WP:DONTBITE]].
BITE is suppressing one on the wiki when someone is trying to contribute. Here he is citing the policy for an analysis of a project not mentioning any one in particular, certainly this is NOT BITING.
But then, i should expect this general cluelessness and ignorance from a "campus ambassador" with a grand total of 41 mainspace edits?.
- Dude you are getting personal here, I respect you obsession with numbers but the whole idea of a "campus ambassador" is to help others to edit, instead of writing articles for edit count. You just took one number and creating all the fuss but you ignored others like ...
Total Edits :705 (in last 5 months)
Article 49 7.09%
Talk 6 0.87%
User 185 26.77%
User talk 238 34.44%
Wikipedia 144 20.84%
Wikipedia talk 26 3.76%
Template 37 5.35%
Help 6 0.87%
He brought up numbers since you called him "misfit" (trolls happen only when people feed from both sides). One must consider the fact that he was a OA in PPP (Remember OA for PPP was selected after following careful process) and unlike IEP (where people are blaming the selection of OA as well [1]). While I greatly appreciate what you and other CA's did doing physical outreach and reaching out to students, but you could have 1000x better if you had better edit count. They are not mere stats which people boast, they are "experience". Being an ambassador is about helping out yes, but not just motivating, helping on wiki syntax. The experience allows to share better insight on policies, rules of the game. I am not particularly blaming you, probably design of IEP (or even PPP if PPP also followed the same model of immature CA). I , along with several editors(Even Ashwin raised the same point on the thread) had a problem with this too and is still not being acknowledged even after the results. All we are asking CA's is to "Practice before you preach". Is that wrong?
In my view scale and quality of students were a bigger problems and got multiplied, but that doesn't mean everything else was right in place. We will learn only if we acknowledge all the proper reasons. There is no need of finger pointing, we need to learn the lessons and the first step would be to acknowledge.
Apart from the numbers we got the experience of personally touching 1000+ students and interacting with Faculty and Directors, which you can not do by siting and editing Wikipedia in your living room. I'm not a 14000+ editor like you but I share the same philosophy of free knowledge, but instead of respecting us you are doing all the mud throwing, it's not acceptable at all!!
I had already given the credit you guys deserved above, You dont know what he has done beyond the 14000+ edits, so please refrain from commenting on others ability to do things without knowing what they have done.
I particularly find it sad when people run over and mail when there are "percieved personal attacks on newbies" but many keep quiet when senior members are told "misfit", 'questioning "siting and editing Wikipedia in your living room" '