[WikiEN-l] Are things getting worse?

[Mark Gerdes]

I'm no longer an active participant on Wikipedia
though I do lurk now and keep up with goings on
because the project is fascinating and worthy.  So
take my comment for what its worth.

You will have argument and conflict where there is no
clarity in policy.  

If you have clarity in policy, there will be argument
and conflict where you do not consistently follow
policy.

For instance, you have the "inclusionist" and
"deletionist" factions and they WILL conflict until
Wikipedia makes a firm stand one way or the other. 
Until then it will be a hodge-podge of deletions and
inclusions that will frustrate everyone depending on
how their fight on VfD succeeded that day.  The
conflict will not magically just go away.

You have the conflict over the word terrorism.  The
two sides WILL fight it out here, and will fight it
out in revert wars.  But those fights CANNOT be won by
either side and thus continuous combat is assured. 
The combat will not just magically go away. 

This is just common sense and it applies to every
conflict that occurs on Wikipedia and not just these
two examples.  If you want to end the conflict, find
out what the conflict is about, what caused it, and
then set a policy establishing what Wikipedia is and
is not and consistently enforce that policy.

That would mean losing people.  People who do not
agree with a policy will leave and then peace will
reign (or at least exist) for those who remain.  

You can decide to allow survival of the fittest in the
encyclopedia wars.  That is a valid choice and is in
fact how it works now.  You can't argue with the
200,000 articles that this chaos and anarchy has
produced.  But sometimes, "the fittest" for internet
wars are not necessarily the fittest for writing
encyclopedias and many good people are driven off. 
Being loud and persistent is not the same as being
good.

Does Wikipedia want to remain a utopian anarchy or
does it want to establish firm policies to reign in
conflict?  Does it want to be inclusionist or
deletionist or does it want to be all things depending
on a vote? 

I don't know.  I recuse myself from making a
recommendation since I am already a loser in the
encyclopedia war and proved to MYSELF that I am
"unfit" to continue editing here. 

But if you are a utopian anarchy, then stop worrying
about it and accept conflict as a good thing.

If you are concerned about conflict and edit wars and
trolls then make some firm rules and don't make
exceptions for some people and not others. 

You are currently a utopian anarchy.  To be that and
complain about chaos is just plain silly folks.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html