On 31 January 2011 17:49, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I do find it ironic that former members of the
Arbitration Committee are
proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and everyone
else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of the
committee to do so.
The problem is that the other two-thirds of Wikimedia are having their
reputation adversely affected by en:wp's reputation.
e.g. Tim Starling feels there's no point working on technical measures
to attract newbies until en:wp's terrible newbie-biting is fixed:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-December/050843.html
e.g. on the internal list, when I pushed WYSIWYG, the *first* reaction
(from a board member) was "that's pointless to think about when people
are treated so badly on en:wp."
Crossing the streams of project autonomy would be bad, but a good way
to leave others feeling they need to is to make excuses to avoid
solving the problem in question. So you may want to not do that.
The so-called "civility issue" is only one
thing that turns off female
participants. Another is the need to master significant amounts of technical
information before being able to edit.
As noted above, even the paid employees amongst the techies want the
civility problem fixed before they'll work on that. I believe that
puts the ball back in your court.
- d.