On 25/10/06, SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/25/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I have to agree with a lot of what you have
said.
I still use en.wp as a reference (sometimes), but I rarely edit it. My
reason now isn't the same as the one I used to have (busy with other
language wikis), but rather, simply that I find the climate to be too
hostile and too toxic for me to make any real editing progress.
I find this sometimes myself, depending on the topic. It's not so
much that process is bad, but for every ten bits of process there
should be one bit devoted solely to being nice to others and helping
them work out better ways to express themselves, rather than slapping
people down or admonishing them to follow guidelines.
Indeed.
The good
admins are getting discouraged and leaving one by one, and
the bad admins are continuing in their horribleness.
I'm not sure about this; it always seems this way. But some good and
subtle ones are discouraged; and many who are intolerant of criticism
and certain they have the only solutions remain.
Agreed.
en.wp has even
gotten to the point where to be a member of certain
sites critical of Wikipedia is somehow bad, and to be a *sysop* at
them is even a sort of bannable offense (notably Hivemind, Wikitruth,
ED).
Is it a bannable offense? There should be a special award for people
who are effectively critical of Wikipedia.
Well, after ED posted an article about User:MONGO which he thoroughly
disliked, he started his campaign against it. Wikitruth and other
similar projects have long been viewed as not good because they were
mostly started by banned users.
Mark