[WikiEN-l] The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed

[Charles Matthews]

Jay JG


> >From: "Charles Matthews"
> >
> >The community writes the 'pedia.  A 'great' community is actually quite
> >well
> >characterised by its attitude to joiners.  Particularly, here, newbies
with
> >other Internet experience who have something to say but are
over-assertive
> >and edit 'in the wrong register'.

> To join and be part of a community, you have to abide by its norms.  Those
> who fail to do so generally face exclusion from the community of one form
or
> another.  And I find Wikipedia extremely reluctant to use the tools it has
> to enfore communal norms, to its detriment.

Yes, the reluctance is clear.  The reasons for the reluctance are clear,  to
most people.

>Some of the detriment is seen
> in the highly variable quality of the content.  Other is seen in the many
> good editors willing to abide by those norms, but not put up with those
who
> do not, and who end up leaving.

The variable quality will always be there, as far as anyone can see.  The
fact that some valued editors will leave is something WP will always have to
live with.

Basically, there is nothing like a consensus on any of the following:

(a) WP is failing;
(b) A harder line on banning would be an unqualified plus;
(c) POV pushing can be solved by enforcement.

Not one of the many ArbCom candidates in the recent electio, IIRC, was
_clearly_ for a more authoritarian policy, where there _was_ a consensus for
swifter action.  So I still believe the 'good editors exodus', about which
we often here, is panicky.  We should really be worried if their
replacements were not being recruited.

The thread is called 'The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed'.
More of the same alarmist rhetoric, as far as I'm concerned.

Charles