> At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd(a)lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
>>
>>> These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
>>> years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
>>> specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years). So
>>> my comments get long. If that's a problem for you, don't read it.
>>
>>
>> ... Has it really not occurred to you that *you're* trying to convince
>> *us* of something? In which case, conciseness is likely more useful
>> than defiant logorrhea ... Oh, never mind.
on 5/31/10 6:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax at abd(a)lomaxdesign.com wrote:
>
> It's occurred to me that you'd think that and claim it. I'm not
> writing for you, David. I'm writing for certain others who want to
> read this, and there may still be some left. If I considered it worth
> my time to write polemic, i.e, the "useful conciseness" that you seem
> to want, I'd do it. I know how to do it. It simply takes about three
> times as much time to cover the same topic in a third of the length.
> And I don't have that time. I really don't have the time to write this....
>
> Or to say it more clearly, even:
>
> I don't think convincing you is a worthwhile use of my time.
>
> You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading. You
> were not personally the cause of Wikipedia's problems, though you
> typify certain positions that are part of the problem itself. Those
> positions are effectively created by the structure, or the lack of it.
>
> You could possibly be a part of the solution, but you'd have to
> drastically review and revise your own position, coming to understand
> why it is that power is slipping from your grasp or the project is
> becoming increasingly frustrating.
>
> No, I'm writing to this entire list, even if it seems I responding to
> a single post. I know there are some here who get what I'm saying,
> and they are the ones I care about. It's even possible that I'm
> writing for someone who will read this after I'm dead. I'm old
> enough, after all, to see that as coming soon, and I have cancer.
> Slow, to be sure, and I'm more likely to die from something else,
> but.... it makes me conscious of my mortality. Do you really think I
> care about what you think?
>
> I know myself pretty well, and I'm definitely not trying to convince
> you, I'm not in a relationship with you and I'm demanding nothing of
> you, not even that you read this. I just write what I see, it's what
> I've always done, and there have always been people who very much
> didn't like it. And others who very much like it. I don't normally
> write to this list, but I saw that some were really trying to grapple
> with the problems, so I made some comments reflecting my experience
> and ideas. They have always been unwelcome, largely, from those whose
> positions are untenable when examined closely.
>
> There have been others like me, in some way or other, who did this on
> Wikipedia. If they were unable to restrain themselves, or didn't care
> to, they've been blocked or banned. Wikipedia doesn't like criticism,
> but the *large* consensus is that it's necessary. Unfortunatley, the
> large consensus almost never is aroused, it takes something big to
> get their attention.
>
> To summarize a recent incident:
>
> You can take away our academic freedom, we don't really care that
> much about it, and those were troublesome editors anyway, but take
> away our pornography, you're in trouble!
>
> Same issue, really. But the meta RfC on removal of Jimbo's founder
> flag, based on his action at Wikiversity, was stagnating at about 2:1
> against it until the flap at Commons, when editors started pouring
> in, and it's currently at about 4:1 for removal, last time I looked,
> with huge participation.
>
> And Jimbo resigned the intrusive tools (block and article delete)
> that he'd used. In spite of his prior threat that effectively said
> "I'm in charge." Don't assume my position on this! I commented,
> though. I commented on the problem at Wikiversity in a few places,
> and got a confirming email from Jimbo as to what I'd said about it,
> and certainly no flak from him. I neither oppose consensus, nor the
> needs of administrators and managers of the project. I'm trying to
> assist, but, I know to expect this from long experience, there are
> always people who don't want such assistance, because it serves them
> that things are the way they are. If anyone actually wants
> assistance, write me privately. I do know pretty much what could be
> done. But I certainly can't do it alone! and I wouldn't even try,
> other than putting a toe in the water and tossing a little yoghurt in
> the lake to see if it's ready to take.
>
> you never know.
Abd,
Bravo! And thank you for your honesty - and your perception.
Marc Riddell