On 01/08/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
I understand the motivation for saying this, but I
misunderstand the goals of the people attacking WP; they are not after
individuals, they want the project as a whole to fail, or to come under
their control in some way. If a dozen prominent Wikipedians leave, then
the attackers will go after the next dozen, and so forth. Go and read
some of the conspiracy stuff at WR; Jimbo's use of the term "lunatics"
is not an exaggeration! Is that really who you want deciding what goes
on at WP?
Appeasement is not going to work.
And characterising it as "appeasement" just further polarises the
situation. The fact that someone we don't like would be pleased (or
smug, perhaps more accurately) does not stop the fact that the project
would be better off for it. I am not calling for this because it's
what Wikipedia Review demand - I don't know what Wikipedia Review
want, to be frank. I am calling for this because I'm sick of it, and I
feel strongly that others are too.
I have no doubt that there are people who would keep attacking the
project if every single one of our existing "senior" users, however we
define that, you and I included, left tonight and were replaced by new
people. That's life. Those people are nuts, and we ignore them.
But this is above and beyond that. It's senseless, self-perpetuating,
worthless drama. It actively *encourages* further trolling and attacks
- like this "spy" claim - and artificially boosts their plausibility
by the way we react to them. It sullies the project as a whole; it
makes us look like paranoid loons with bizzare hidden agendas. It
makes it look like the nutters have something sensible to say, which
is the most worrying part...
And that's not just how it looks to the crazies. This is the image we
begin to show to the outside world at large!
I have invested several years work in this project; so have you. This
self-centred drama is trivialising what we've tried to achieve; it's
using the encyclopedia as a playground for personalities, with a vague
pretence that this in some way benefits the community. It makes us
*all* look bad, and if left unchecked it will begin to seriously
jeopardise the goodwill we have patiently built up over the years.
- Andrew Gray