On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:06 PM, wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
- the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are generally,
tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is also essential (and that, frankly, often involved strategic drama-stirring and a willingness to battle vested-interests).
I think that is a short-sighted view.
You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later you find that the problem has come back and got worse.
I would focus on:
WP:CHRONIC INCIVILITY (as a subset of WP:RFC/U) WP:LONG-TERM (to pull together long-term issues and see them through)
Carcharoth
Carcharoth, we evidently edit entirely different wikis.
"You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later you find that the problem has come back and got worse."
What "quick fixes"??? The problem is that nothing gets done short or long term. My approach doesn't produce "quick fixes" for the impatient, I have been at some of the issues patiently for years and getting nothing done, or little and only be attrition. Perhaps an aggressive approach seldom works, but the opposite of civil patience shows no sign of working any better.
You are right, you /should/ be able to demonstrate that civil patience is more productive than bullheadedness, the problem is that the evidence is at best neutral.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth Sent: 01 February 2011 17:54 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:06 PM, wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
- the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are
generally,
tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is also essential (and that, frankly, often involved strategic drama-stirring and a willingness to battle vested-interests).
I think that is a short-sighted view.
You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later you find that the problem has come back and got worse.
I would focus on:
WP:CHRONIC INCIVILITY (as a subset of WP:RFC/U) WP:LONG-TERM (to pull together long-term issues and see them through)
Carcharoth
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Carcharoth, we evidently edit entirely different wikis.
"You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later you find that the problem has come back and got worse."
What "quick fixes"??? The problem is that nothing gets done short or long term. My approach doesn't produce "quick fixes" for the impatient, I have been at some of the issues patiently for years and getting nothing done, or little and only be attrition. Perhaps an aggressive approach seldom works, but the opposite of civil patience shows no sign of working any better.
You are right, you /should/ be able to demonstrate that civil patience is more productive than bullheadedness, the problem is that the evidence is at best neutral.
If you've been at something for years, people do not agree with your approach. Not with your method necessarily, but with whatever you are trying to do.
Everybody loses a debate from time to time, but after bringing something up over and over you should assume others understand the issue but don't agree.
Fred