[WikiEN-l] The more I think about my ban from Wikipedia, the more I realize how wrong it was.

[Ray Saintonge]

Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia culture has evolved these days,
> there seems to be a large tendency to "cry for blood" all the time, 
> and to conduct "troll hunts".  There's an extremely vindictive, 
> punitive attitude all around, and a belief that it's more important 
> to protect the fragile egos of long-time Wikipedians than to try to 
> be fair to newbies who may just be inept or frustrated rather than 
> being the evil trolls they're often labeled as when they rub somebody 
> the wrong way.  Once somebody with some status on Wikipedia claims to 
> be attacked, harrassed, stalked, or otherwise bothered by somebody 
> with lesser status, it's all over for them... everybody else circles 
> their wagons and has no interest in hearing the other side of the 
> dispute (and there are *always* at least two sides to any dispute).
>   
Interesting that you should analyse this in terms of a person's status. 
Generally people who really do have status are secure in that status 
don't need to engage in this kind of behaviour.  I think it mostly come 
from those who have a very limited and fragile view of Wikipedia.  The 
transition from the limited scope of these people depends on being able 
to move from judging Wikipedia activity on the basis of rules to judging 
that activity on the basis of principles.  For the rule-minded "Ignore 
all rules" is an outrage; for the principle minded it is an opportunity 
for developing new ideas.
> This list is perhaps a bit more of a tolerant zone than Wikipedia 
> itself these days, but still sometimes sees similar behavior, though 
> the ability to make somebody an "unperson" by deleting their posts 
> before anybody can read them at least doesn't exist.
I agree.  Maybe its because we have a critical mass of experienced 
people who have an appreciation of these dynamics.  We certainly have 
our share of hardliners, but there are enough other opinions here so 
that the hardliners can't draw the conclusion that silence is consent.  
This is not possible on Wikipedia itself.  When a newbie is criticised 
there he is not in an easy position to question that criticism; he 
doesn't know whether the critic has been there five years or five days.  
In theory he could check that out, but that's unrealistic for a newbie 
who is just becoming familiar with basic wiki markup.  If such a newbie 
is referred to rules, which are wikis themselves, he can't know about 
the background of that rule and the degree of support that it has in the 
community.


Ec