On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Tim the Enchanter wrote:
I have only been on Wikipedia for about a week so I
don't suspect that my
views are going to carry much weight.
Well, I've been on Wikipedia for over a year, & there are times when my views
don't carry much weight either. ;-) But it never hurts to state them;
sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised.
However, I have spent a good bit of
today reviewing some of these edit wars and some of the talk pages so I
think I'll put in $.02 worth. Wik, I would say, does not act out of spite,
but simply wants to contribute what he can to the wikipedia ensure that the
entries he works on are correct.
It is true that Wik appears sincere.
The problem is he is very stubborn, refusing to even give an inch when he
has decided he is correct about something. This does show a sign of
immaturity in him, but I would not say that is a bannable offense. He has
been in numerous edit wars with various users where both continuously revert
each others edits. Wik's attitude seems to be that he'd rather completely
remove the contributions that he disagrees with rather than adjusting them
to be more neutral (sense that seems to be the major reasoning behind his
changes).
If this your analysis is correct (& I would agree that it is), then Wik
misunderstands not only the use of article reverting, but the whole
concept of the Wikipedia. Articles are written by consensus, not by the
fiat of one or two authors; even when someone insists on inserting an, er,
*alternative* viewpoint into an article (as a hypothetical example, let's
say a user insists on inserting language into the [[Earth]] article that
asserts the Earth is actually flat, & its roundness is the result of a
conspiracy), further research to explain the cause of these multiple
POVs can actually lead to better content (as in my hypothetical example,
a section in that article on the proof of curvature by observation, &c.)
This won't be the result for every disagreement, but the possibility of
this beneficial result should encourage all of us to at least *try* to
reach a consensus on an article before resorting to other approaches.
And has anyone remembered that the whole point of Wikipedia is to produce
something useable for an external audience? When an article is hobbled
by two factions reverting each other's work routinely, it is keeping
all of the information in that article -- the good, bad & mediocre --
from that audience.
Helping other people is the point of this whole excercise, *not* getting
another two-bit ideology in front of the Internet. (And if that is
someone's reason for contributing, then make a web page & put your
opinions there. It's not that hard to do, & a lot easier to attract
people to read it than you might think.)
I have observed that such actions has caused other
problems such
as portions of articles, that had no reason to be removed, being deleted
accidentally.
And has this been brought to Wik's attention?
And then there is the concept of Wikilove. What does Wik think of it?
[snip]
[A] more immediate action to address this situation
would
be to issue a warning from the site owner (Jimbo I believe) stating that Wik
must start using other methods besides reversions for a certain amount of
time to see if he can learn to be more [[diplomatic]], leastwise he would be
banned if not permanently then at least temporarily.
Jimbo has just posted that he has tried to reason with Wik, & with
discouraging results. Obviously Wik isn't aware of the Golden Rule --
"He who owns the gold, makes the rule" -- & that if one disagrees with one
of the few rules Jimbo insists on for Wikipedia, one should have at least
carefully thought out the reasons for the disagreement.
And I'm disturbed also by his treatment of Adam/Lir. Admittedly, Adam/Lir
has an unfavorable reputation from his earlier activities, but all of his
contributions I've seen from Adam/Lir in recent months are not the work of a
"troll" or a "vandal"; even a cursory reading of his contributions do
not support the earlier reputation. To require Jimbo to intervene in
order for Adam/Lir to make a single change is unconscionable.
I've said all I can think of on this point. Where do we vote to put Wik
under a temporary ban?
Geoff