JT wrote:
172 commented: 'I know that I've been warned
against
this, but I'd be tempted to protect this page from
that garbage.' -172
Mav's response was - 'I tend to agree.'
Whoa! I think there is a /huge/ misunderstanding here.
My response was to 172's comment that ended with
"Second, it's hideously written and full of
grammatical errors. These people, seeking to have this
low-brow polemic inserted in such a crucial article,
are making a mockery of Wikipedia, which is striving
to be a good, scholarly source of reference." NOTE: I
moreso agreed with the text before that somewhat harsh
sentence.
See:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Catholicism&oldid=1183…
Here is the diff for my edit:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Catholicism&diff=11834…
When I submitted my comment I got an edit conflict so
I pasted my response right after 172's sig. JT's quote
of 172 was appended by 172 in the edit just before
mine; that is what caused the edit conflict. I didn't
check to see what caused the conflict - that's my
fault and I apologize. To be clear I did /not/, at
all, in any way "tend to agree" that the page should
have been protected. Again it is my fault for not
properly handling the edit conflict.
But the fact remains that it did look like I indicated
agreement with page protection. Apparently my opinion
on things carries some of weight with at least with
172 so I can see some logic in his assertion that he
had support. All this should be taken into
consideration.
Erik wrote:
....
People come to Wikipedia and are amazed by
being able to add information. We encourage
them to do so. Be bold!, we say. So they add
what they believe is right, at the best of
their ability. ...
WikiLove is about giving people the benefit
of the doubt, and not attributing to malice
what can be explained with simple ignorance.
...
Very wise words.
When dealing with people, you should give
them a way out. A way to agree with you
without hurt feelings.
Bing, bing, bing! Give this man a prize!
I'm not saying we should embrace people
like DW even after they give us constant
abuse. I'm saying we should be tolerant
of newbies, tolerant of young Wikipedians
who don't have the knowledge we expect of
them. We should be teachers and models,
not arrogant editors who chase away the
meddling kids.
Yes, I think that is a very good attitude to have
toward newbies. I can't really say more since you
covered the topic so well.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com