On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Nicholas Carr's criticism, while hyperbolic, is more right than wrong.
Actually, I think it is completely wrong. It completely misapprehends what is being discussed here.
Hiding information from users is not good.
Right, but no one is proposing to hide information, merely to present the most useful information at the most useful time. The template plastered at the top of the article has been a convenient approach because we were able to do it ourselves, without asking Brion to change anything.
What we want to do is to be as welcoming of diverse participation as possible, while at the same time controlling for vandalism. As we learn and think, we find better ways to do this.
First, we forever had article protection and bans. These are valuable tools, but we don't like article protection because it keeps people from editing *at all*. And because it keeps people from editing *at all* we have to be very very sparing with the use.
So, we thought about it long and hard, had a big discussion and a vote, and decided to *soften* article protection. With semi-protection. This has, in general, been a great success. It is a softer tool, so it can be used a bit more broadly. More people can edit more articles more often, and less drive by vandalism results. So far, so good.
Now, we are thinking again: how can we extend this? How can we be more welcoming to editing?
Well, one thing we know is that the big scary message at the top of articles discourages people from participation. It makes it seem like we have locked articles when we have not locked articles.
So the idea is to make the user interface better, to give people the information they need and want, when they need and want it, rather than thrusting on them something that they find confusing and misleading.
Hence, the proposal: don't do the notification with a template, change the UI so that people are more encouraged to join the project and start editing...
As with the softening of protection -> semi-protection, the concept here is to encourage more people to edit, while controlling for problems when they need to be controlled.
Calling this sort of thoughtful tweak to policy "the death of Wikipedia" is more than hyberbolic, it is just factually wrong.
Your language is strikingly emotional.
You describe the actions you support as: "thoughtful" "tweak" "softening" "need and want" "more welcoming" "soften" "softer" "bit more" "great success" "better ways" "thought long and hard" "most useful"
The alternatives and alternative viewpoints are presented as: "factually wrong" "confusing and misleading" "plastered" "big scary" "discourages"
It would be interesting to try to edit down your argument into something that was not so transparently biased. I'm not sure what would be left. But it would be a start for having an honest discussion about this, rather than an exercise in emotional pleading.