Re: [Wikimedia-l] Participating on Wikipediocracy

I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I haven't been participating. At times I've gained useful insights and information from things posted on those sites. In particular, they have been a set of strong voices advocating over the years for greater attention to the well-being of BLP subjects. To be clear, there are valid reasons for people to be upset by some things that take place on those sites. A few contributors there have a tendency to take things badly out of context (not least about myself), to exaggerate problems that do exist, and to take even valid points to their illogical extremes. The sites often do not abide by the Wikimedia norm that allows editors to remain anonymous or pseudonymous, which disturbs those of us who think there are valid and important reasons for this norm and sanctions for breaching it. The tone of discourse can be grating and nasty and at times seems to be deteriorating, which is not to suggest that it was ever the Algonquin Round Table to begin with (nor, to be fair, is WP:ANI.) There is a troublesome tendency to focus unduly on a few individuals' personalities and private lives (the subforum devoted to mocking Jimmy Wales is particularly unimpressive and ought to be discontinued). The wholesale publication of hacked or leaked correspondence from an internal mailing list on WR a couple of years ago was certainly a low point. As a general statement, the threads focused on article quality and on policy issues are more substantive and more useful than those focused on particular individuals. I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest it reflects badly on Lila. I do suggest to Wil that a critic site should not become one's *main* source of input on Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and that assertions there need to be cross-checked rather than simply accepted. But I suspect that Wil understands that already. Newyorkbrad On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Wil Sinclair <wllm(a)wllm.com> wrote: