On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
10% of active users? You want hundreds of people
playing games and doing
nothing else before you consider intervening? Absolutely no way. For the
No, 10% of users who have ever played one of these games. Or a single
active editor who at some point "plays games and nothing else". Right
now, the body of wikipedians is making perhaps a hundred edits a week
to game pages. That's comparable to the number of edits we have to
pokemon-project stubs.
And the reason that a site like the wikicities game-site won't succeed
is that wikigames are mainly amusing if you know the other site-users,
and have other reasons to work together there! They aren't much fun
compared to other game forums unless you're already using the site.
Even the user you imagine is 'only playing games' right now is
doubless using the encyclopedia regularly.
intervention, citing precedent and lack of consensus.
The problem needs
to be stopped at its very root now. You have presented no single
plausible argument why this is not so.
There are so many interesting ideas that one can stop with an
exaggerated brinkmanship scenario like this. I don't think a
hard-security policy of "stopping things at their roots," when nothing
problematic has happened, is efficient... unless you are omniscient.
--
++SJ