I would like to start by applauding Mr. Wales for his wonderful idea of writing a free online encyclopedia by the contribution of volunteers. I am hoping that it can be improved to a reliable source of information as time goes.
At this point, it is evident that, there are some structural problems in Wikipedia. Ignoring these problems doesn't lead to a reasonable solution and doesn't help.
The main problem I can see is the unbalance between the user rights and admin privileges. It can be adjusted and corrected but the problem needs to be identified first. It might not seem to be a serious issue for one who is not effected, but it really is. It is of paramount importance to realize that motivation of ordinary users from any background can be stimulated only by a fair treatment of their edits.
It is also equally important to realize that the conjuncture has a strong influence on the editors without an exclusion of the admins. Some people feel marginalized and faced to bias actions from some admins. Isn't this important enough to address? The answer to the question is strongly related to the strategic call of being inclusive or exclusive.
Please note that any person leave Wikimedia is not only a minus to the community, in general, is a plus to the anti-Wikipedia community. I, myself, am at or around that border line and before crossing it I wanted to make a friendly call for a discussion of the issue. I would be glad to discuss the issue and make some suggestions for the solution if you are interested.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Mon, 29 May 2006 00:21:04 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
The main problem I can see is the unbalance between the user rights and admin privileges.
And the main problem as I see it is people who come along with an agenda and act like spoiled children when their attempts to push that agenda are thwarted, often driving away excellent editors in the process. YMMV.
Guy (JzG)
Hi,
In re:
The main problem I can see is the unbalance between the user rights and admin privileges.
And the main problem as I see it is people who come along with an agenda and act like spoiled children when their attempts to push that agenda are thwarted, often driving away excellent editors in the process.
The squeaky wheels have been especially squeaky recently. We should always be keeping in mind those editors who never kick up a fuss but don't have our exceptional tolerance for drama, bad writing, POV-pushing and trolling. I read comments that refer to the amount of "our time" that some problem editors waste; I suggest that we should also keep in mind the effects of combatitive users on mainspace-only editors and newbies.
Jkelly
On 6/3/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I suggest that we should also keep in mind the effects of combatitive users on mainspace-only editors and newbies.
Exactly. This is why too much tolerance and too many second chances hurt the project.
-Matt
On 6/3/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I suggest that we should also keep in mind the effects of combatitive users on mainspace-only editors and newbies.
Jkelly
Do mainspace-only editors and newbies even *know* about combatitive users? I guess they know about the ones that leave the (usually generic and often inapplicable) messages on their talk page, but other than that, I don't think they know or care.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I suggest that we should also keep in mind the effects of combatitive users on mainspace-only editors and newbies.
Do mainspace-only editors and newbies even *know* about combatitive users?
If they're trying to edit the same article as a combative user, they do.
On 6/3/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/3/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I suggest that we should also keep in mind the effects of combatitive users on mainspace-only editors and newbies.
Do mainspace-only editors and newbies even *know* about combatitive users?
If they're trying to edit the same article as a combative user, they do.
Only if they check back regularly to see whether or not their change has stuck, and happen to check back one of the times it hasn't (I suppose some "mainspace-only editors" might do that).
Anthony