On 1/5/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 1/5/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote: But so long as
they aren't actually doing any harm, then why not praise their constructive efforts, instead of trying to chase them away? The more we make
Wikipedia
a cheerful co-operative community instead of a battleground, the better
for
all concerned.
When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know something about policy, they *are* doing harm. They are wasting the
time
and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the
goal
of the project.
Jay.
Not really. Arguing about policy with longtime editors who actually know something about policy tends to make for better, more well thought out, and more clearly documented policies.
If the longtime editors "who actually know something about policy" don't understand *why* those policies are in place, then maybe they should learn this, or maybe the policy itself needs to be re-examined. If things have been well thought out and documented, then pointing the newbie to a link which explains it all should take very little time, and will create a better contributor.
Anthony
On the flipside of that, I think that having a new editor come in and join a discussion with old editors can provide a fresh point of view on a policy. Eventually people get so used to a policy that they've basically had it surgically implanted into their minds, and there's not much anyone can do to change their view on it. If a brand new user comes in and says "That policy's stupid!" and provides good reasons for why it is, they can help influence the policy in a more level-handed direction. The challenge for them, admittedly, is getting anyone to listen to them.
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.