[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 30, Issue 19

[W. Guy Finley]

On 1/3/06 1:08 PM, "wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org"
<wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org> wrote:

> From: Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 05:37:24 +1100
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The userbox fad
> 
> On 1/4/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On the other hand, many people don't care about the userboxes, but are
>> instead upset over the way with which their deletion has been handled.
>> More deletions at this point may solve the userbox problem, but not
>> the community interaction problem.
> 
> 
> If there's anything to be learned from this, it's that unproductive members
> of the community do less harm than trying to take away their toys does. You
> end up alienating a lot more people than you thought you would.
> 
> Ryan


Not to sound elitist but I probably will but WHO CARES if we alienate a few
people who are more interested in making a sticker book than an
encyclopedia?  If someone is so riled that their little sticker that says
"Caring Cat Owner" (yes, it does exist at Template:User_Caring_Cat_Owner) is
no longer allowed, so much so that they decided to leave the project then I
say don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out.  We ARE NOT going
to miss those people.

If this community and this project should have learned any damn thing from
the Siegenthaler fiasco it is that QUALITY matters more than QUANTITY and
that translates on down the line.  I would rather have 100 thoughtful
editors than 1000 who don't have a clue.

Does this mean that I think we should have some sort of test or requirement
for editors?  Of course not.  Does it mean that we shouldn't let everyone on
in to contribute?  Of course not.  What it does mean is that any addition to
the project needs to be closely scrutinized with a cost/benefit analysis --
does this feature, project, fork, or what have you offer more benefit to the
project than it could cause harm?  We apply the same criteria to special
protection -- do anonymous editors add more benefit to controversial
articles than they could cause harm?  Absolutely not and we've developed a
process to deal with that.

In the case of user boxes, outside of the babel boxes, I think this whole
matter has demonstrated without a single doubt ABSOLUTELY NOT and they
should be terminated.

--Guy  (User:Wgfinley)