On 1/27/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. There have been tentative advances on this front, for instance in the recently concluded webcomics case where two issues were addressed: attempts to alter deletion policy without discussion, and alienating newcomers by smearing them as trolls and ridiculing them.
The alienating newcomers part is what particularly concerns me. I think those on the 'front lines' of fighting vandalism and spam get very rapidly jaded and cynical, and start assuming bad faith automatically. In truth, I find, most newcomer editors are operating in good faith. Not being that familiar with the Wikipedia project, of course, many are in good faith attempting to do things we don't want or in ways that aren't the ways Wikipedia uses, but that should not allow us to think they mean any harm.
It is a mistake to put these people on the defensive, to make them feel attacked. Not all of them are capable or interested in being Wikipedia editors, but some of them will be - among whom may be many people capable of being excellent content editors once they understand the project better. It is not in our best interests to burn these people.
Even if their ultimate goals are not compatible with the Wikipedia project and they won't make useful contributors, we should endeavor to handle them politely.
Of course, some contributors are not acting in good faith. However, we should keep in mind that they may simply be misguided. Those adding spam links, for example, may not realise how much this is frowned upon here; seeing external links in many articles, they might simply have assumed that linking to on-topic external sites is acceptable.
Even with bad-faith contributors, it would be a good thing to handle them with as little drama and provocation as possible. If we have to show them the door, let's do it quietly and politely.
There have been some cases of editors using the laudable principle that the debate is not a vote as a kind of two-by-four with which to browbeat people who make too-brief statements. While it is desirable to have a good debate, this is not facilitated by having some participants haranguing others in this manner.
Again, goes back to assuming good faith. Encouragement to elaborate is a good thing, but not browbeating.
References to specific items in the undeletion policy are almost absent from the Deletion Review page, and some of the statements that are there go directly against the principles of the undeletion policy. A notice by me informing editors that I am temporarily undeleting pages that are subject to good faith nominations for undeletion has been removed twice on the pretext that my notice "wasn't discussed". There is in short a palpably abusive atmosphere in these forums. at least one such undeleted article has been deleted as "improperly undeleted." The presumption of bad faith is the norm.
I personally feel that Deletion Review has a worse record than AFD or the other deletion forums.
-Matt