On 6/25/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/22/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The Germans have it right, in my opinion, on their homepage: "Gute Autorinnen und Autoren sind stets willkommen."
"Good authors are always welcome."
The opposite of a good author is a bad author. What kind of person regards themselves as a bad author _and_ will happily accept an introduction like this as a good reason not to participate? I don't think it's the bad authors, school children and trolls we have to deal with on a regular basis. I think it's more likely to be people who lack self-worth and confidence, and who will be turned away, and will never try editing Wikipedia for fear of being shouted at. Many of these people could become excellent contributors: not all areas of Wikipedia require a thick skin.
How about "New editors always welcome!" - then, the assumption is that we will give *anyone* a *chance* (as opposed to implying that we will let anyone edit, no matter how destructive they are).
We have a history of being welcoming to _everyone_, and to then examine their track record, to assist them in improving their contributions, or to remove them from the project. I also believe that becoming a "good author" on Wikipedia takes a lot of learning of both the social and the technical dimension of the project. It's not
IMHO being a "good author" is irrelevant. Perhaps it comes from the German translation, but one's "authoring" skills aren't really important, if one is adding images, reordering categories, performing any manner of maintenance etc. Hell, even a "bad author" who is adding useful information is useful - we have copyeditors to clean up afterwards.
Jimmy, I may be wrong, but I suspect the notion above reflects your desire for Wikipedia to be seen (correctly) as elitist by the media, rather than a free-for-all. As you said in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, "I think Wikipedia is extremely elitist. We're a bunch of snobs. But it's an elitism of productive work, it's an elitism of results."
We're not elitist at all. The tone of most of our articles is very folksy and approachable, and our massive predilection for pop culture, over history or literature should put paid to that theory. It's rare to see two academics arguing over a substantitive issue on a difficult topic. Most of the arguments are emotional or territorial.
Steve