On Jun 2, 2006, at 8:57 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
There is only one rule : don't offend the "cabal" (or any of the cliques w admin members), or you will be punished. The policies as written seem nice, but they have nothing to do with who is punished and who is not. Quality of articles has nothing to do with it either. Nepotism determines everything.
Technically this will always be true, but ideally, admin cliques should only be offended by things that hurt Wikipedia.
-- Philip L. Welch
Do I hurt the wikipedia? Have my 30,000+ edits been harmful?
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Sam +Spade&dbname=enwiki_p
Or is it perhaps simply a personality conflict with a certain "cabalist" which has damned me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Sam_Spade/Proposed_decision#Sam_Spade_assumes_bad_faith
I would argue that the wikipedia power structure interferes with the production of quality articles, discourages ordinary contributors (resulting in the high rate of editor turnover) and reduces what could have been a competent and rewarding process of peer review into a punishing and arbitrary "arbitration committee".
I recommend to anyone with any say about how things are being done to review any authoritative text on Behavior Modification. Punishment results in resentment, rewards encourage desired behavior.
SS
We are not trying to modify your behavior, just reminding you that if you can't play nice, you can't play at all. Choosing to be alienated is your own choice.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l