[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 30, Issue 19

[geni]

On 1/3/06, W. Guy Finley <wgfinley at dynascope.com> wrote:
> On 1/3/06 1:08 PM, "wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org"
> <wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 05:37:24 +1100
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
> >
> > On 1/4/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On the other hand, many people don't care about the userboxes, but are
> >> instead upset over the way with which their deletion has been handled.
> >> More deletions at this point may solve the userbox problem, but not
> >> the community interaction problem.
> >
> >
> > If there's anything to be learned from this, it's that unproductive members
> > of the community do less harm than trying to take away their toys does. You
> > end up alienating a lot more people than you thought you would.
> >
> > Ryan
>
>
> Not to sound elitist but I probably will but WHO CARES if we alienate a few
> people who are more interested in making a sticker book than an
> encyclopedia?  If someone is so riled that their little sticker that says
> "Caring Cat Owner" (yes, it does exist at Template:User_Caring_Cat_Owner) is
> no longer allowed, so much so that they decided to leave the project then I
> say don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out.  We ARE NOT going
> to miss those people.
>

As a general rule we can get by after loseing pretty much anyone. that
doesn't mean we should.


> If this community and this project should have learned any damn thing from
> the Siegenthaler fiasco it is that QUALITY matters more than QUANTITY and
> that translates on down the line.  I would rather have 100 thoughtful
> editors than 1000 who don't have a clue.
>

Evidence that useing user boxes = editor that doesn't have a clue

> Does this mean that I think we should have some sort of test or requirement
> for editors?  Of course not.  Does it mean that we shouldn't let everyone on
> in to contribute?  Of course not.  What it does mean is that any addition to
> the project needs to be closely scrutinized with a cost/benefit analysis --
> does this feature, project, fork, or what have you offer more benefit to the
> project than it could cause harm?  We apply the same criteria to special
> protection -- do anonymous editors add more benefit to controversial
> articles than they could cause harm?  Absolutely not and we've developed a
> process to deal with that.
>

Maybe but once we throw in a cost benifit analyisis of doeing cost
benifit analyisis I think we find that they are not worthwhile.

> In the case of user boxes, outside of the babel boxes, I think this whole
> matter has demonstrated without a single doubt ABSOLUTELY NOT and they
> should be terminated.
>
> --Guy  (User:Wgfinley)
>

Nah I like it when people admit their baises. Saves a lot of time. To
be honest how often do you read user pages anyway? Personaly I feel
sorry for anyone reading mine.

--
geni