Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 2/21/07, Parker Peters
<parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's not the obvious vandalism that's a
problem, it's the number of people,
growing every day, who see an article, try to fix it, and get whacked by an
over-eager, over-egoed, over-caffeine-dosed admin who's lost the ability to
distinguish from a real vandal and someone trying to [[Be Bold]] and fix a
problem.
I can see two possible patterns a newbie editor can get into when
trying to "fix" a "defended" article.
1. bold/revert/talk/shrug/go play elsewhere
2. bold/revert/bold/revert/bold/revert/go WTF on talk
page/bold/revert/bold/revert/
bold/revert/more dickery on talk
page/block/sockpuppets/block/lather/rinse/repeat
As far as you know, have any of these innocent newbie editors drew the
wrath of a "rogue admin" following pattern 1?
Ron,
Perhaps I'm misconstruing your point. Is your question rhetorical, or
actually seeking information? Are you suggesting that, if a "newbie
editor" were to simply walk away, there would be no problem?
IF that is what you're suggesting, then I seriously disagree with you.
Sure, perhaps there would not be the more visible problem of revert
wars, "dickery", sockpuppets, etc. But the less visible, but more
insidious problem of an admin preventing valid work an a page would
remain. A "bold edit" (as opposed to vandalism) should not simply be
reverted. Yes, I may be guilty of doing this, but then I should be
gently warned, and progressively less gently warned if I continue, until
either more drastic action is required against me, or I mend my ways.
Of course, none of that is exclusive to admins. That's just standard,
respectful behavior. But if the newbie has heard that one must be
careful about admins, or one can get blocked, the "shrug and walk away"
behavior is more likely, especially for the kind of newbie editors who
would likely become productive editors. The boldness of the newbie
editor is diminished (if not squashed entirely), and at least in some
cases, the newbie may give up on the project entirely.
Meanwhile, the admin who reverted the newbie doesn't draw the attention
of anyone else. You can't really call the admin "abusive", at least not
intentionally. But from the point of view of the newbie, it could very
easily seem like "there was this admin, who could ban me from the
project, who refused to allow me to make changes to this page. I guess
Wikipedia isn't as open to people editing as I thought they were. And
those admins sure are a pain in the ass."
No complaints to anyone. Just a bad taste in a newbie's mouth.
Successful businesses quickly learn that the real bad news isn't that
your customers are complaining to you--the real bad news is when your
customers aren't complaining to you but are disappointed, and are
complaining to others.
-Rich