From: Jon Awbrey jawbrey@att.net Subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey Message-ID: 4494D0B6.ED03BE97@att.net

An attempt at translation:

it is no longer worth the headache trying to write quality articles or to improve articles in this ennvironment.

"Wikipedia doesn't suit me."

but i would like to post some of my observations in hopes that it might help out somehow, someday.

"Because..."

WP is a meeting ground for several types of people. the main types i've observed fall under these heads:

1. accurate reporters (AR's).
2. responsible scholars (RS's).
3. infantile vandals (IV's).
4. expert disrupters (ED's)

"There are a number of types of people on it I don't like."

in the present state of WP, the rules in practice and the prevailing attitudes of admins are all skewed in favor of IV's and ED's, while the AR's and RS's don't stand a chance.

"And the admins are to blame."

by "rules in practice" i mean the way that policies and guidelines actually get enforced. the sad thing is that the "rules in principle" state all the right ideas, but people who are born and bred to check facts don't have a chance against puppet mobs of pseudo-newbies, who seem bent on nothing short of making the world safe for their current state of ignorance. "assuming good faith" and "not biting newcomers" are so much easier for admins to parrot that it has rendered them the most naive dupes of expert disrupters who have learned how it easy it is to exploit their naivete. in short, WP is like email before virus protection.

"Because I don't like how admins operate and the rules don't work."

this is one of the biggest reasons that WP's reputation in responsible communities has gone from "not especially reliable source" (NERS) to "dump of popular errors" (DOPE). it is my impression from my acquaintances that more and more responsible scholars who buy into the ideals of WP in the beginning quickly find themselves disamyed by the realities, and just go way quietly after a short while of seeing their efforts go to waste here.

"And I don't like how Wikipedia works generally."

i really do hope that something that lives up to the stated ideals and policies of WP does come into existence someday, so i will try to put aside my present discouragement and focus on the kinds of experiences that can be converted into constructive critique.

"Although it would be nice if it worked how I thought it was going to work, and I'm in a bad modd because it doesn't."

---

the resistance to facing unpleasant realities is perfectly human and thorougly understandable, but real situations do not improve unless people squarely face the gap between ideals and realities. i am not such a newbie on planet earth that i have not faced constant disappointment and near-utter discouragement on a recurring basis, and i have survived long enough on planet earth to know that there is nothing for it, when the transient pain has passed, but to salvage what lessons can be learned from the experience.

"You may not like what I have to say, but I'm entitled to say it."

so, yes, it will be necessary in this parting feedback to recount a number of negative turns of events that i have experienced during my sojourn in wikipedia. but the purpose of examining these incidentals is to find some means of learning from them.

"I haven't enjoyed my time with Wikipedia and here is why."

---

i will try to stay focused on the task at hand, which is simply to provide clear feedback that might become useful at some time in the future toward the actualization of a worthy objective with which i continue to feel a certain degree of sympathy, even though my personal resources on its behalf are approaching final exhaustion.

"I'm fed up, but want to give my reasons".

accesses of strong feelings as i lay out this narrative are probably inevitable, and defensive reactions on the part of some of its readers are quite natural and to be expected, especially with those who share a strong bond of common identity with each other and the ideals of WP. indeed, until just a few days ago, i was commonly found to be voicing many of the same apologies and excuses to my acquaintances with regard to the rough- jeweled state and the promise of WP, so i know most of these by heart.

"Wikipedia editors tend to band together."

i do not know if the reputation of WP could be diminished any further among the acquaintances that i have discussed it with, but i do know that whether its reputation improves or worsens, it will be through the acts of the WP community as a whole, and not through my words.

"My friends agree Wikipedia isn't much good, and only Wikipedia's editors can change that opinion."

I'll have a crack at the next email in the sequence when I get it. I've often had to work on machine-translated words, like Mr Awbrey is posting here, so I'm pretty good at getting the gist, although it's more useful to have the originsl to work from as well.

Mr Awbrey: please will you email this to me in your original language and I will try to find a translator who can help with the details. Thank you.

->REDVERS

___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html