I'm sorry to have to say this ;-) but I agree with John.
Communities resent it when outsiders tell them what to do unless they have specifically asked for that outsider's opinion. Communities build upon more than mere logic, but also on trust and familiarity; it's what "paying one's dues" is all about. I may vehemently disagree with certain of John's positions, but I have a sense of knowing what to expect. The bare right to do something is just a tool; it's an entry point into the community. Your suggestions may be perfectly correct, and indeed some of the observations may carry with them a clarity unencumbered by the community's prejudices, but that's not enough to ensure that the community adopts your ideas.
When an outsider becomes insistent on promoting his views his credibility and that of his views are diminished. He has no stake in the outcome, and can safely watch the results from outside, and in the event that the attempt to adopt those ideas fails he can retreat into the very safe excuse that "they misinterpreted my ideas."
Your idea to create better co-operation among various wikis is commendable, but your means of promotion is not designed to draw supporters. Ec
John Lee wrote:
How are you hurt if you don't come out and admit you don't edit Wikipedia much, if at all? We won't hurt you. We're just curious. We aren't judging your proposals based on who they're coming from, but if they sound ridiculous, then the way we look at them does depend on who you are. If it was, say, any known active Wikipedian, then we'd know for sure that something has to be corrected. But musings from someone who is not active on Wikipedia are likely to be way off.
From your postings, I think we've already established you aren't an active editor - that's okay with me. But you should know that trying to cover this up will only hurt your reputation instead of enhancing it.
NSK wrote:
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 03:24, Delirium wrote:
it's natural that your ideas will be treated more skeptically than those of someone who is demostrably familiar with the community
I think it would be a good idea if people could examine ideas and decide on their usefulness without considering who proposed these ideas.
Consider for example that it is possible that a well-known community member may say something wrong and a newcomer can say something useful.
So, although some people may be somewhat sceptical seeing a non-familiar name in their To: headers, they should examine the ideas and not the poster; or at least this is my opinion.