Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/10/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Or [[User:Kelly Martin]]. I count one article edit in the last 500, though I might have missed a few.
Deleting userboxes is as productive toward the goal of creating an encyclopedia as creating them.
These people have assumed duties that aid the process of building an encyclopedia which do not (directly, at least) involve article editing. A new user (and pretty much everyone who isn't on the Board, Medcom, Arbcom, etc.) does not have such responsibilities. The only way they/we can help out will almost certainly involve article editing (stub sorting, AfD/speedy tagging, etc.). Even some niche tasks (like preparing spoken articles or uploading images) involve some article editing.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
So, it's bad to not make many article edits. And the response to my comment that there are board members and arbcom members who don't make many article edits is that it's OK, because they're board members and arbcom members?
I'm sorry, but that seems circular to me. I think there are lots of ways to improve Wikipedia which don't involve any article editing, and most of them don't involve admin powers either.
<snip>
Anthony
I don't consider it circular reasoning. These people have gained the trust of the community to perform certain tasks that ordinary/new editors may not (at least without getting in hot soup). They are building the encyclopedia, too. I don't care if they create a billion userboxes (provided this doesn't overload the servers), as long as they continue helping out to build the encyclopedia. Article editing is but one metric for measuring this enyclopedia-building quotient, but it generally applies to all editors unless they have other duties that do not involve article editing but do involve encyclopedia-building. And if you can think of ways to build an encyclopedia without editing or gaining the trust of the community, please, do share.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])