I think this is a great word to describe the phenomenon we are talking about. It's very easy to stereotype such people as being trolls or deliberate troublemakers, but it's hard to reconcile that with the amount of good work they also do.
Something which is brittle can also be beautiful and functional. Handle with care. :-) The only problem with brittle people is that they don't bend, they break. So the rough and tumble of social interaction on Wikipedia can often deteriorate very quickly in a way that less brittle people have a hard time understanding. Moral condemnation comes easily to hand, but it isn't always appropriate, and in any event is rarely productive.
As with many others who have answered David Gerard's original post, I have no answers, but I think the question of how we can better serve such people is a great one.
--Jimbo
I personally would like to see more attention to rewarding good behaviour and less to punishing bad. I think that would help alot. Maybe if adminship was determined my a long and complementary process, rather than an open vote (where you get to see the names of those who oppose you), some of the bad blood would reduce. I can say from my studies in behavioural psychology and job coaching that the wikipedia has '''far''' too much emphasis on scolding and potential punishment processes, and not nearly enough on compliments. The ratio of compliment to criticism which has been shown most effective in modifying the bahaviour of others is 5 to one. Thats five compliments for every critisism, something rather far off from where the wiki is now. Cheers,
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/16/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think this is a great word to describe the phenomenon we are talking about. It's very easy to stereotype such people as being trolls or deliberate troublemakers, but it's hard to reconcile that with the amount of good work they also do.
Something which is brittle can also be beautiful and functional. Handle with care. :-) The only problem with brittle people is that they don't bend, they break. So the rough and tumble of social interaction on Wikipedia can often deteriorate very quickly in a way that less brittle people have a hard time understanding. Moral condemnation comes easily to hand, but it isn't always appropriate, and in any event is rarely productive.
As with many others who have answered David Gerard's original post, I have no answers, but I think the question of how we can better serve such people is a great one.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We have alot of work to do in the area of nube training/integrating (as opposed to newcomer biting) as well.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/17/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe if adminship was determined my a long and complementary process, rather than an open vote (where you get to see the names of those who oppose you), some of the bad blood would reduce.
Surely the corresponding reduction in transparency of the process would simply lead to more people screaming "cabal"? I can see the disadvantages of both, but I recognise that open voting can be a hindrance when it comes to voting users voicing their discontent with the candidate. When it's 49 votes in support, placing one vote in opposition can be tough, especially as it can lead to animosity from the supporting voters.
~Mark Ryan
Well, what I was envisioning was not a closed vote (as with the arbcom elections) but rather a long and friendly training process, where users are intergrated into the community in a series of steps, each based on some positive act the user was involved in. For example mediating a dispute, revertng a certain amount of vandalism, welcoming newcomers, cleaning up articles, writing stubs, and being part of getting an article featured, for example.
In summary, I'd like to see adminship be based on a series of successes and training, rather than what can often amount to a rather rough popularity contest. Also, we (as a community) simply need to integrate users better, and be kinder and more helpful in general.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jack Lynch wrote:
I personally would like to see more attention to rewarding good behaviour and less to punishing bad. I think that would help alot. Maybe if adminship was determined my a long and complementary process, rather than an open vote (where you get to see the names of those who oppose you), some of the bad blood would reduce. I can say from my studies in behavioural psychology and job coaching that the wikipedia has '''far''' too much emphasis on scolding and potential punishment processes, and not nearly enough on compliments. The ratio of compliment to criticism which has been shown most effective in modifying the bahaviour of others is 5 to one. Thats five compliments for every critisism, something rather far off from where the wiki is now.
I'd be very surprised if I'm the only one here who has noticed JCarriker's proposal, [[User:JCarriker/Esperanza]] -- although he doubtlessly intends to apply his idea to more than only "brittle" contributors.
Geoff