The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/6/05, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/6/05, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
But preveneting anons from creating new pages is a different matter, and it seems a worthy time to make an experiment of it.
Don't call it an experiment if it's not. If it is an experiment, then there should be clear conditions for its start and finish, and clear methods for taking measurements from it. Just admit that it's a policy change and move on.
Unless you're willing to state an end date for this. Or *at a minimum* start collecting good data on the effects of the change.
I have some other ideas for experiments, by the way, if anyone's interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better.
I think these comments are way over the top. Jimmy *is* interested in actually trying things to make Wikipedia better. You may not agree with the methods, but to call into question his motives is inappropriate.
I think if you ask Jimbo, he'll say it's perfectly appropriate for me to question his motives.
In fact, a clear sign of a dysfunctional society is one in which questioning authority is considered inappropriate.
Much apologies Anthony, but you are incorrect here. Tc is not only fully empowered to question Jimbo's motives and actions, but it *important* that he does so. Not only because the points he makes may be valid, but even more because he reminds everyone that we must not feel we are in an organisation where our input is discouraged. It is not healthy to rely only on one person to make all the good decisions and have all the good ideas.
And Jimbo understands that.
I think you can understand that as well, being yourself most of the time on the questioning side :-)
Besides, tc is very civil. So politely making valid points and hinting that there might be "other solutions" than the path chosen is absolutely not "way over the top".
It is healthy.
Ant