On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David
Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Meh. You lose good editors that way.
Potential contributors need to create an account
to edit, but don't have to provide an autobiography.
Sure, why not?
Have only one or two bodies with clearly-defined
authority. People have common sense: trust them to use it.
That'll scale.
Experts are invited to review articles, but they
need to contribute as a regular editor for some time first.
I'm sure the
experts who are already tripping over themselves to write
wikipedia articles will love that.
We have a zero-tolerance policy on sniping and
offensive remarks.
Have a culture that looks down upon incivility and poisonousness with a sense of
humour:>laugh about things.
That's not zero-tolerance. That's the way
every project starts.
Ensure that (administrators|wardens|whatever we
decide to call them) feel no qualms about>kicking out clearly disruptive people.
If it was clear to everyone who the disruptive people were, there
would never be any problems. But one person's troll is another
person's misunderstood genius.
Hmm. I've just thought of a generalisation about WP, which I haven't
immediately discarded (a freakish circumstance). WP has problems - hoo
boy - but they are the problems of success. When they bring out the cake
with the ten candles, let's all make a wish: that we continue to have
that sort of problem, not the ones the competition has.
Charles