Re: [WikiEN-l] "Good authors"

On 6/22/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: The opposite of a good author is a bad author. What kind of person regards themselves as a bad author _and_ will happily accept an introduction like this as a good reason not to participate? I don't think it's the bad authors, school children and trolls we have to deal with on a regular basis. I think it's more likely to be people who lack self-worth and confidence, and who will be turned away, and will never try editing Wikipedia for fear of being shouted at. Many of these people could become excellent contributors: not all areas of Wikipedia require a thick skin. If an _actual_ bad author is going to be turned away by a message like that, I think they are likely to be the kind of person we could reform, and turn to areas of Wikipedia where they could be productive. After all, they have listened to reason. We have a history of being welcoming to _everyone_, and to then examine their track record, to assist them in improving their contributions, or to remove them from the project. I also believe that becoming a "good author" on Wikipedia takes a lot of learning of both the social and the technical dimension of the project. It's not something which you _are_ when you visit the site for the first time. A knowledgeable person might be completely incapable of reaching consensus, and a dyslexic might be well aware of their problem, and focus on pictures or policies. Jimmy, I may be wrong, but I suspect the notion above reflects your desire for Wikipedia to be seen (correctly) as elitist by the media, rather than a free-for-all. As you said in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, "I think Wikipedia is extremely elitist. We're a bunch of snobs. But it's an elitism of productive work, it's an elitism of results." These were very wise words. However, an elitism of results is not in conflict with being welcoming to everyone we don't know yet. Indeed, it requires it. Erik