[WikiEN-l] Re: Broken dispute resolution mechanisms (was Reithyis a problem)

[Charles Matthews]

"Bryan Derksen" wrote

> Personally, I'd much rather work with a contributor who's good at
> collaborating within the Wikipedia environment than one who "knows his
> stuff" about the subject at hand, given a choice of only one or the other.
> Holes in knowledge are easily filled but dealing with a bad collaborator
> can be very hard.

People always do opt for 'easy-going' colleagues.  A friend of mine with a
successful business career gave me the opinion that the awkward colleague
usually was the one who got the job done.  It is a truism about voluntary
organisations that this is not something that immediately translates.

But ... if it is accepted that WP will become harder to expand usefully, the
more that the well-known facts are already covered, then actual experts
become increasingly needed.  I would find it easy to come up with areas
where there seems to be a unique wikipedian who can write authoritatively.

>I think it's not unreasonable to consider unpopularity as
> an important and relevant factor here, though of course not the only one.

Making popularity a high priority is a charmless policy, in my opinion.  It
is also the 'wrong end of the telescope'; most people respond to a good
community atmosphere by becoming good wikizens, and scapegoating a few who
don't is a policy of last resort.  If Wiki-en has had 100000 signed-in
users, it will have attracted quite a number of 1-in-1000 Internet
antisocials.  Enough to give the 'problem user' prominence, certainly in
discussion on this list.

So, I come down more on the side of 'Wikipedia community, heal thyself' than
on of the ArbCom bashers.  Surely WP has enough momentum, not to be
deflected away from a general tolerance, and AssumeGoodFaith _especially_ of
the less popular (as usual, matters most when least likely to be applied).
I find the 'bad-faith user' a slightly creepy epithet, actually, for what is
usually a POV editor.

Charles