[WikiEN-l] The userbox fad

[Jay Converse]

On 1/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/5/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/5/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >  But so long as
> > > they aren't actually doing any harm, then why not praise their
> > > constructive
> > > efforts, instead of trying to chase them away? The more we make
> Wikipedia
> > > a
> > > cheerful co-operative community instead of a battleground, the better
> for
> > > all concerned.
> > >
> > >
> > When they argue about policy with longtime editors who actually know
> > something about policy, they *are* doing harm.  They are wasting the
> time
> > and trying the patience of someone who is actually contributing to the
> goal
> > of the project.
> >
> > Jay.
>
> Not really.  Arguing about policy with longtime editors who actually
> know something about policy tends to make for better, more well
> thought out, and more clearly documented policies.
>
> If the longtime editors "who actually know something about policy"
> don't understand *why* those policies are in place, then maybe they
> should learn this, or maybe the policy itself needs to be re-examined.
> If things have been well thought out and documented, then pointing
> the newbie to a link which explains it all should take very little
> time, and will create a better contributor.
>
> Anthony
>

On the flipside of that, I think that having a new editor come in and join a
discussion with old editors can provide a fresh point of view on a policy.
Eventually people get so used to a policy that they've basically had it
surgically implanted into their minds, and there's not much anyone can do to
change their view on it.  If a brand new user comes in and says "That
policy's stupid!" and provides good reasons for why it is, they can help
influence the policy in a more level-handed direction.  The challenge for
them, admittedly, is getting anyone to listen to them.


--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.