On 9/13/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think a process which tests Wikipedia content creators to destruction, and whose advocates actually think this is a good thing for a process to do, is prima facie pathological and needs removal as soon as possible. It's way too damaging to the community.
Again, Hilary Putnam is one example--we're regularly pumping out 50+ FAs a month, so one loud complaint every few months doesn't suggest to me that the entire system is broken. On the contrary, FAC has encouraged many editors to write better articles (including myself). Perhaps it would be better if we were all willing to work toward something with purely altruistic goals, but I don't see that happening any time soon--the status of FA gives both a sense of closure and a sense of accomplishment, and for many those are powerful motivators.
Furthermore, I know of no advocates of FAC who think it's ok to maliciously test content creators to destruction (AGF?). There are many, however, myself included, who aren't going to sugarcoat our comments just to make people feel good. If an article is poorly written, I'm going to say so, providing evidence for my claim and being ready discuss the issue with anyone who disagrees with my judgment. Honest feedback means that people's feelings can get hurt, but a mature response to that is either acceptance or discussion regarding the validity of the feedback. In a collaborative project, editors must be allowed to give negative feedback, and they must be mature enough to accept it when they are on the receiving end. There's a difference between polite yet direct honesty and "destruction", and if there isn't, I don't see how that's the fault of the person giving the feedback.
Nathaniel