Earlier: How not to bite the n00bs?
... removing teeth would be nice.
Since admins CAN delete and ban, they think their job is to look for people to delete and ban. Why not remove delete and ban features and be done with all this carping about abusive deleting and banning, and the damage done to Wikipedians one and all.
More to the point, why are we so afraid of crappy pages? If a page is truly crap, it will be ignored - nobody will go there. Or someone will edit it and make it better, especially the original creator of that so-called "crappy" page, but ONLY if they are encouraged, are and allowed to get some wiki reading, editing, and writing experience. Conversely, [Search] will bring us to the pages we really want anyway, so we will bypass the crappy pages - they do not need to be so diligently and abusively deleted.
The goal is not a 100% perfect encyclopedia. The goal is a COMMUNITY building an encyclopedia. BUILDING, not BUILT. It will never be "built". It will and should always be "in process", "under construction", IMPERFECT! We will continue to increase the number and quality of good pages - I am not worried ... unless the deletionists keep bashing the life out of Wikipedians, newbies and oldies alike!
So long as it's not spam or vandalism, everything's good. And crappy pages are good starter pages for people to learn NPOV and so on.
Anyone without the patience to help by participating with all editors of any page - MOVE ON and do something else! Stop deleting and banning! ... and quit complaining about bad contributions - make 'em better (or move on and let someone else have a hand at it).
So, I suggest preventing n00b-biting by removing admin teeth, and let's get back to building Wikipedia, rather than this constant discussion about how to delete, delete, delete.
==
Now, for non-admins, let's talk about general curtsey, having a positive and helpful attitude, setting an example of our preference for editing, community building, ...
On Nov 6, 2007 11:48 AM, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote: [snip]
The goal is not a 100% perfect encyclopedia. The goal is aCOMMUNITY building an encyclopedia. BUILDING, not BUILT. It will never be "built". It will and should always be "in process", "under construction", IMPERFECT!
The direct form of process over product, that the purpose is community and not a useful encyclopedia, has been explicitly rejected by the English Wikipedia community last I checked. It's certainly a disputed position.
Besides, there is a big difference between "a necessarily imperfect work in progress" and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_S._Patton&curid=42090&a... (first diff on English WP RC when I loaded it) ... At least this instance of vandalism is probably not going to material harm to anyone.
On 11/6/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007 11:48 AM, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote: [snip]
The goal is not a 100% perfect encyclopedia. The goal is aCOMMUNITY building an encyclopedia. BUILDING, not BUILT. It will never be "built". It will and should always be "in process", "under construction", IMPERFECT!
The direct form of process over product, that the purpose is community and not a useful encyclopedia, has been explicitly rejected by the English Wikipedia community last I checked. It's certainly a disputed position.
Besides, there is a big difference between "a necessarily imperfect work in progress" and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_S._Patton&curid=42090&a... (first diff on English WP RC when I loaded it) ... At least this instance of vandalism is probably not going to material harm to anyone.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Anyone who uses the internet knows there is a chance of getting inappropriate content. We have one of the best protection mechanisms for it available, because of the very large number of users.
On 11/6/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/6/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007 11:48 AM, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote: [snip]
The goal is not a 100% perfect encyclopedia. The goal is aCOMMUNITY building an encyclopedia. BUILDING, not BUILT. It will never be "built". It will and should always be "in process", "under construction", IMPERFECT!
The direct form of process over product, that the purpose is community and not a useful encyclopedia, has been explicitly rejected by the English Wikipedia community last I checked. It's certainly a disputed position.
Besides, there is a big difference between "a necessarily imperfect work in progress" and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_S._Patton&curid=42090&a... (first diff on English WP RC when I loaded it) ... At least this instance of vandalism is probably not going to material harm to anyone.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On 06/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007 11:48 AM, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
The goal is not a 100% perfect encyclopedia. The goal is aCOMMUNITY building an encyclopedia. BUILDING, not BUILT. It will never be "built". It will and should always be "in process", "under construction", IMPERFECT!
The direct form of process over product, that the purpose is community and not a useful encyclopedia, has been explicitly rejected by the English Wikipedia community last I checked. It's certainly a disputed position.
I think it's worth realising that we're a work in progress. I really like [[WP:WIP]]. I'd try to make it shorter if I'd written it, but I did add the list of red link lists at the end.
We are WAY less finished than you might expect from a top-10 reference site.
- d.
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 11:48 -0500, Monahon, Peter B. wrote:
Since admins CAN delete and ban, they think their job is to look for people to delete and ban. Why not remove delete and ban features and be done with all this carping about abusive deleting and banning, and the damage done to Wikipedians one and all.
So long as it's not spam or vandalism, everything's good. And crappy pages are good starter pages for people to learn NPOV and so on.
I'll go start that article on myself, then. Also, I hate to beg the question, but if no one is able to block, how does one stop users from spamming and vandalizing?
On 11/6/07, Monahon, Peter B. Peter.Monahon@uspto.gov wrote:
Earlier: How not to bite the n00bs?
... removing teeth would be nice.
You have a point about admin tools, but I'd imagine that bark (by any contributor, admin or non-admin) can leave a far stronger first impression than bite.
--Gracenotes