G'day Chris,
On 4/10/2007 9:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
The opposite scenario deterioratres relationships between admins/bureaucrats and regular users, and makes people feel that
their> opinion is worthless. Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization. People whose contributions to the process are not reasonable and thoughtful damage the process by their participation, and coddling them by insisting on equal valuation of their opinions is counterproductive.
All very true. However, also rather dangerous.
Put simply: who gets to decide which opinions are worthy and which are not? Once you declare that certain Wikipedians are so worthless that their views must be ridiculed, you have introduced not one, but two, new ideas. The first is obvious: if Erik Moeller says something silly, we get to ignore him. The problem comes with idea number 2: I get to decide whether Erik is making sense, and treat him with the appropriate level of rudeness as a result. But what happens if *I* am the one being silly? What happens if *Chris Parham* is the one being silly?
I can --- and do --- rant and rave and whinge about the failings of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, of the CVU admins and the userboxies and the Chinese Whispers brigade and so on, but I don't get to suggest they're all morons or that they should be silenced until they stop holding the opinions that cause me to rant and rave. Our right to try to persuade people that they are wrong only exists if we extend to them the same courtesy.
Cheers,
On 4/12/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Chris,
On 4/10/2007 9:59 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
The opposite scenario deterioratres relationships between admins/bureaucrats and regular users, and makes people feel that
their> opinion is worthless. Perhaps if people are made to feel their opinions are worthless, they will respond by developing opinions that are less subject to that characterization. People whose contributions to the process are not reasonable and thoughtful damage the process by their participation, and coddling them by insisting on equal valuation of their opinions is counterproductive.
All very true. However, also rather dangerous.
Put simply: who gets to decide which opinions are worthy and which are not? Once you declare that certain Wikipedians are so worthless that their views must be ridiculed, you have introduced not one, but two, new ideas. The first is obvious: if Erik Moeller says something silly, we get to ignore him. The problem comes with idea number 2: I get to decide whether Erik is making sense, and treat him with the appropriate level of rudeness as a result. But what happens if *I* am the one being silly? What happens if *Chris Parham* is the one being silly?
I can --- and do --- rant and rave and whinge about the failings of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, of the CVU admins and the userboxies and the Chinese Whispers brigade and so on...
As a multilingual project with a significant Chinese Wikipedia, probably not ideal to use this phraseology.
And no, I don't think you're a moron for using it. [/snark]
-Andrew
On 4/12/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/12/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I can --- and do --- rant and rave and whinge about the failings of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, of the CVU admins and the userboxies and the Chinese Whispers brigade and so on...
As a multilingual project with a significant Chinese Wikipedia, probably not ideal to use this phraseology.
And no, I don't think you're a moron for using it. [/snark]
Well, according to a certain online encyclopaedia, the game is also called telephone, broken telephone, operator, whisper down the lane (my favourite) or pass it down.
And that's not even starting on the names in other languages :)