It can work the other way too--projects aren't closed. I've joined projects that i think are moving in undesirable ways for the sake of seeing and perhaps even modifying the arguments. If I know I have a different attitude than the great majority, I say so when I join.
for example, I'm a member of both the Deletionism and the Incluclsion project, & I'm by no means alone in doing this. I see a good number of self-declared atheists in the various religion projects, and they are usually helpful--they can know about religion too. Many Christians are interested in Judaism, and vice versa.
Although there are lots of little worlds in WP, they do mix. DGG
On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:52:42AM -0400, The Mangoe wrote:
There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um, problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
I think this is overly pessamistic and does not agree with my experience. People who form a Project that invariably will attract people who "belong" in the sense you suggest, step over backwards to ensure that their local guidelines fit the core policies. They are often more critical of articles on non-notable topics than other editors might be. I think we should all accept good faith here. I much bigger problem is the way some editors who do not understand the topic really muck up the article. They can join a Project but the Project will sort them out.
Wikiprojects can still be susceptible to a scaled back version of a lot of the issues that we face elsewhere. Deletion issues need to be guided by the projects to minimize the effect of those who delete things because thay never heard of it. I agree that they can be more critical of non-notable topics, but they have more to base their criticism on. Two separate Wikiprojects can indeed come to different conclusions about rules issues, and as long as neither is trying to impose its view on the other I have no problem with that. Where the projects actually interface it must be a matter of negotiation.
The issue of editors who don't have a clue about the topic can be a problem, but one which is distinct from having no clue about the project. The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing things that it becomes authoritarian. While we cannot accept every piece of idiocy that is added to an article, we still need to make room for new ideas, and, even more importantly, newcomers need to feel welcome and a part of the decision making process.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l