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=11834...
Here is the diff for my edit: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Catholicism&diff=118348...
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