On 8/14/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
This is a question that has occurred to me in the context of arbitration,
and how to avoid it.
There's a common personality type for trouble on Wikipedia: brittle in
interactions with others, can't tolerate ambiguity, so gets into
rules-lawyering. Sees "common sense" and "judgement" mostly as
excuses to
exercise bias, not as recognition that all rules are fluid in the pursuit
of our goal.
I am not thinking of any individual, but of a general type I've noticed. I
think something about Wikipedia will tend to attract them. I would *guess*
it's something that attracts people from further up the autistic spectrum
than the general populace, but that's just speculation.
The point is that they're good and hard-working contributors, but can get
difficult to work with. And putting them on a processing line that leads to
arbitration strikes me as not being a good thing. Is there a better way?
I welcome your thoughts and speculation.
- d.
I've dealt with mentally ill and developmentally disabled people for
many years. It can be very difficult, and over time, it can seem to
become even more so. These suggestions seem obvious, but they are
what works for me.
Tolerate far more than you're used to tolerating.
Repeat yourself far more often that you're used to repeating yourself.
Rephrase as necessary.
Be more patient than you've ever dreamed of being.
Make your motivations more clear than you're used to making them.
Give instructions more clearly than you're used to giving them.
If there is a pending escalation warranted, gently warn early, warn
often, and always follow through with exactly what you said.
If there is reward pending, mention it often, and always follow
through with exactly what you promise.
In my observations, among those who care for people with mental
problems there seems to be three types: those with the patience of a
saint, the apathetic, and those who are abusive or nearly so.
Among those who want to wikilawyer everything to death, I don't know
how useful this can be, but the prominence of "ignore all the rules",
and "don't vote on everything" in the Wikipedia culture can be helpful
if they themselves aren't overrun by the recent "write it all down and
vote on it" trend that I think is beginning to take hold.
I think this is why Ed's deletion of the deletion page was so
welcomed. I think we NEED some more minor edit fights over policies
and procedures, because the rise of wikilawyering is killing "be
bold". I only hope that any edit fights that take place can be good
natured pillow fights.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused