I am a consulting project manager for a number of UK blue chip companies and
I have dispassionately asked myself the following simple question:
Which would I rather have working on a project to ensure its accurate and
timely execution: Julie Kemp or Helga Hechts?
The answer I think is patently apparent. The amount of rework that Helga
causes seems more than sufficient justification for me to advocate her
permanent removal. If we are not careful and persistent "Helgas" are not
either a) educated into the program or b) politely but requested to desist,
the damage to the project will be considerable. The amount of patience we
have demonstrated so far is disproportionate to the amount of damage and
disruption she has caused. It is time for her to go.
I would dread to think the amount of work which has been damaged and wasted
as a consequence of the intransigent behaviour of this alleged contributor
and I strongly feel that we either as a community wise up to her inherently
destructive behaviour or we do something about it. If it's a straight swap
and we can persuade Julie to come back by removing HH sine die, then that
would be a total win-win situation from my perspective (and no doubt those
others who contribute in the history areas). I would take that decision
unilaterally if I could, but this is a community thing. If we let Helga
stay, we lose Julie (maybe have already lost Julie for good). How many more
contributors of this calibre can we afford to alienate?
I am deeply upset about Julie's decision to pack it in but I can understand
her reasons and truth to tell I can't say I blame her. It is about time we
as a community show some backbone by showing Helga (very firmly) the door.
Steve Callaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com>
Cc: "Julie Hofmann Kemp" <juleskemp(a)yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 12:39 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Kooks and trolls: Rant about losing great
contributors
And then there
are the problem cases,
people like '24' and possibly Helga --
these people aren't simple vandals, but
neither are they getting with the program
in a constructive way. I reserve the right
of final banning on those cases to
myself,
although of course I'm probably too patient
in seeking general consensus first.
--Jimbo
I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but some of this
patience you and others (including me) have had could
very well have resulted in JHK's, Michael Tinkler's
and unknown other's leaving the project in disgust.
Our current lax enforcement of our etiquette policies
along with our tolerance of kooks and trolls seem
hostile to experts and many others -- no wonder we
keep driving them away.
I say we should be a bit more diligent in enforcing
our Wikipetiquette policy and in informing those who
would be kooks and trolls that their kooking (is that
a word?) and trolling is not welcome here. See
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette
I'm sick and tired of loosing good, no great,
contributors because of our lax attitude in these
matters.
This is just my opinion - take it or leave it. I'm
/not/ speaking as a sysop; I'm speaking as a greatly
annoyed Wikipedian who already misses working with
Jules (and who also worries about our history articles
being over-run by kooks now that JHK is gone).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
[Wikipedia-l]
To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l