On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
There is only one rule : don't offend the
"cabal" (or any of the
cliques w admin members), or you will be punished. The policies as
written seem nice, but they have nothing to do with who is punished
and who is not. Quality of articles has nothing to do with it either.
Nepotism determines everything.
Technically this will always be true, but ideally, admin cliques
should only be offended by things that hurt Wikipedia.
--
Philip L. Welch
Do I hurt the wikipedia? Have my 30,000+ edits been harmful?
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Sam+Spade&…
Or is it perhaps simply a personality conflict with a certain
"cabalist" which has damned me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade/P…
I would argue that the wikipedia power structure interferes with the
production of quality articles, discourages ordinary contributors
(resulting in the high rate of editor turnover) and reduces what could
have been a competent and rewarding process of peer review into a
punishing and arbitrary "arbitration committee".
I recommend to anyone with any say about how things are being done to
review any authoritative text on Behavior Modification. Punishment
results in resentment, rewards encourage desired behavior.
SS