On 6/25/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/22/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
wrote:
The Germans have it right, in my opinion, on
their homepage:
"Gute Autorinnen und Autoren sind stets willkommen."
"Good authors are always welcome."
The opposite of a good author is a bad author. What kind of person
regards themselves as a bad author _and_ will happily accept an
introduction like this as a good reason not to participate? I don't
think it's the bad authors, school children and trolls we have to deal
with on a regular basis. I think it's more likely to be people who
lack self-worth and confidence, and who will be turned away, and will
never try editing Wikipedia for fear of being shouted at. Many of
these people could become excellent contributors: not all areas of
Wikipedia require a thick skin.
How about "New editors always welcome!" - then, the assumption is that
we will give *anyone* a *chance* (as opposed to implying that we will
let anyone edit, no matter how destructive they are).
We have a history of being welcoming to _everyone_,
and to then
examine their track record, to assist them in improving their
contributions, or to remove them from the project. I also believe that
becoming a "good author" on Wikipedia takes a lot of learning of both
the social and the technical dimension of the project. It's not
IMHO being a "good author" is irrelevant. Perhaps it comes from the
German translation, but one's "authoring" skills aren't really
important, if one is adding images, reordering categories, performing
any manner of maintenance etc. Hell, even a "bad author" who is adding
useful information is useful - we have copyeditors to clean up
afterwards.
Jimmy, I may be wrong, but I suspect the notion above
reflects your
desire for Wikipedia to be seen (correctly) as elitist by the media,
rather than a free-for-all. As you said in an interview with the
Christian Science Monitor, "I think Wikipedia is extremely elitist.
We're a bunch of snobs. But it's an elitism of productive work, it's
an elitism of results."
We're not elitist at all. The tone of most of our articles is very
folksy and approachable, and our massive predilection for pop culture,
over history or literature should put paid to that theory. It's rare
to see two academics arguing over a substantitive issue on a difficult
topic. Most of the arguments are emotional or territorial.
Steve