On 25/10/06, SJ 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I have to agree with a lot of what you have said.
I still use en.wp as a reference (sometimes), but I rarely edit it. My reason now isn't the same as the one I used to have (busy with other language wikis), but rather, simply that I find the climate to be too hostile and too toxic for me to make any real editing progress.
I find this sometimes myself, depending on the topic. It's not so much that process is bad, but for every ten bits of process there should be one bit devoted solely to being nice to others and helping them work out better ways to express themselves, rather than slapping people down or admonishing them to follow guidelines.
Indeed.
The good admins are getting discouraged and leaving one by one, and the bad admins are continuing in their horribleness.
I'm not sure about this; it always seems this way. But some good and subtle ones are discouraged; and many who are intolerant of criticism and certain they have the only solutions remain.
Agreed.
en.wp has even gotten to the point where to be a member of certain sites critical of Wikipedia is somehow bad, and to be a *sysop* at them is even a sort of bannable offense (notably Hivemind, Wikitruth, ED).
Is it a bannable offense? There should be a special award for people who are effectively critical of Wikipedia.
Well, after ED posted an article about User:MONGO which he thoroughly disliked, he started his campaign against it. Wikitruth and other similar projects have long been viewed as not good because they were mostly started by banned users.
Mark