On 7/2/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@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.