Carcharoth wrote:
Next thing you know, journalists will be reporting
from blogs by
Wikipedians and Wikimedians, Wikimedia blogs (some of those are
semi-official at least) and even (gasp) from Wikipedia or Commons
discussion pages! Some of the attitude displayed on internal project
pages is rather shocking to anyone not used to the culture there, and
despite some people saying (this is a hypothetical quote, not an
actual one) "hey, maybe we could try and have a calm and reasonable
debate without mud-slinging and personal insults"?
i.e. the level of internal debate sometimes degenerates badly, but
that has always been the case.
It has always been something of a luxury. We all know this stuff: Don't
force the issue/treat other editors as colleagues/don't come across like
the The Self-Righteous Brothers (see [[Harry Enfield's Television
Programme]]). That's one-and-a-half reasons against "executive
decisions", plus one-and-a-half reasons for treating the decisions of
others on their actual merits.
Has never stopped anybody much from creating drama. Fodder for WR and ED
becomes fodder for WR, ED and Fox.
Why change the habits of a lifetime? Those who argue from abstract
principles about our "local governance" will continue to do so. But it
would be good if strongly-held opinions were relegated to blogs, in
cases where the holder cannot help being divisive.
Charles
**