Hoi, I agree with your sentiments. However, this is the Foundation list and it is largely an English language Wikipedia phenomena. I do not feel that it is an issue that I should deal with because I am not really connected to what happens on the English language Wikipedia. Even though it is "not good"TM it is not something that feels like "us" to me. It is you lot of the English language Wikipedia that have to deal with it.
As it is so often said, the English language Wikipedia often prides itself for being the yardstick that other can measure themselves against. This implies a responsibility.. It does not feel right though.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/22/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
... I felt I could not say publicly that
Wikipedia was one
of the tools to bring peace on Earth because I
also know working on our
projects (not only Wikipedia) is somehow becoming
increasingly
difficult. We are more numerous, more protective
to our
featured-content, less welcoming to our newbies
(for technical or social
reasons). How many experts have been driven away by the
agressivity of some of our
members ? How many new editors just were
discouraged by the difficulty
of editing a table or a template ? How many
newbies were blocked because
they just did not understood quickly enough how
to use a talk page ?
Also, during the year, several cases of online or
offline harassment of
contributors were reported. Harassement which
came as a result of their
contributions to our projects.
Brian McNeil wrote:
In trying to do my bit for fundraising I emailed
Howard Tayler, a webcomic
artist asking could he help with my nonexistent
drawing skills and make up
an ad for his site that I'd pay for during part of
the WMF fundraiser.
As an indication that there is indisputably a
problem that needs addressed,
here is the response I got.
I use Wikipedia from time to time, and appreciate
its value to the growing
internet community, and to the world at large.
I will not, however, help them raise money. I am
strongly opposed to the
"anti-webcomics" agenda that has been espoused by
a number of prominent
editors. If the foundation really cared about what
these editors write, and
how they treat other people, it would take steps
to curb their behavior.
This, unfortunately, is a very non-negotiable
position on my part, and I'd
prefer to not argue about it. We'd just be wasting
each others' time.
I appreciate your attempt to raise money for a
cause you believe in, and am
flattered that you'd think of me in connection to
it.
--Howard
This issue isn't just costing us contributors;
we're losing goodwill and
fundraising opportunities.
Brian.
Right....
What is that anti-webcomics" agenda he is talking about ?
Ant
on 10/22/07 1:50 PM, Birgitte SB at birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
This is an en.WP issue (again). Articles on web-comics have been deleted as not notable on en.WP. [1] It might be useful to share with Howard what the actual mission of Wiki*media* is and how it works, just for the sake of clarity. But I can't imagine anyone would really support WMF writing and enforcing new deletion guidelines for en.WP or anything else that would truly appease him.
Brigitte,
This is the key to his message:
"If the foundation really cared about what these editors write, and how they treat other people, it would take steps to curb their behavior."
The web-comics issue must, of course, be presented to. But, to focus only on the web-comics issue is like extinguishing a single tree in the middle of a forest fire.
The issue with Wikipedia is the deteriorating culture, and the equally deteriorating language of that culture! And anyone who stands by and allows it to happen - and to continue - is equally culpable. Cultural change happens only when the people who are a part of that culture change. And a culture is a reflection of everyone who is a part of it.
Marc Riddell
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l