I just want to note that "protecting" a page to deal with edit conflicts is a mediocre solution at best.
This could have been handled so much better.
Please explain the ways it could have been handled better. I will paint your fence, I will wax your car; just put me on the path to slack, zen, nirvana.
kq
On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 01:09, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
I just want to note that "protecting" a page to deal with edit conflicts is a mediocre solution at best.
This could have been handled so much better.
Please explain the ways it could have been handled better. I will paint your fence, I will wax your car; just put me on the path to slack, zen, nirvana.
I just edited the entry. I also am trying to get rid of the depressing edifices of antagonism that others have constructed while I haven't been watching, like "Wikipedia:Edit wars in progress" etc.
We have Ed saying that "edit wars" is a less provocative term than "vandalism", and noone comments? What do you think "war" is?
The whole Vandalism in progress thing was an ugly and bad idea from the start, and it's just getting worse. I mean, "Wikipedia:Votes for sanction"? C'mon.
[[User:The Cunctator/How to build Wikipedia]]: "Avoid Cabals", "Be Respectful but Firm" [[m:WikipediAhimsa]]: "When in doubt, don't ascribe bad motives to people"
Sorry for the aggrieved tone, but it bothers me to see the current situation on Wikipedia, where Jimbo is banning people on a frequent basis, juvenile hissy-fights occur on innumerable pages, and the supposedly responsible people are either avoiding the fray or fanning the flames.
Okay. Enough procrastination for me. Back to better things.
--tc
I don't agree with everything the Cunc has to say, however...
The Cunctator wrote:
[[m:WikipediAhimsa]]: "When in doubt, don't ascribe bad motives to people"
I think that even this is too "aggressive". I don't think it's really ever useful to ascribe bad motives to people on talk pages or in the comments field.
First, it tends to escalate any conflict by rising the ire of the other person. If you already think the other person has bad motives, keep in mind that they probably don't think so, and that you're saying so will just tend to make them dig in their heels.
Second, it leaves a less-clean "paper trail" in case the person needs to be banned. YOU be an angel, and let the OTHER PERSON be the devil, and then if it's absolutely impossible to resolve the situation otherwise, I have a clean paper trail, clearer proof of who was not working co-operatively.
But the irony is, I believe, strict adherence to civility will mean that we almost never get to the 2nd point, because problems will usually be worked out amicably.
--Jimbo