[WikiEN-l] Category:<Subjective-pejorative>, weak consensus, and ! NPOV

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Cobb,

> stevertigo. Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:11:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> 
>>I dont know what else to say. Either we have a culture
>>which respects NPOV or we do not.
> 
> We don't. We have policies and guidelines... but the
> admins who close AFDs don't read them, and if they
> do they don't act on them. We have a deletion process
> that is deliberately opaque and awkward to prevent
> people from using it and getting the idea that deleting
> anything from WIkipedia is a good thing.

Utter bollocks.  The vast majority of complaints about those of us who 
close AfDs come from people who wouldn't know policy if they tripped 
over it.  "He didn't count votes!  Make him count votes!"

> We also have large chunks of Wikipedia with hardly
> any editors applying the basic rules of Wikipedia.
> These areas are controlled by organised groups
> who make Wiki-life extremely difficult for anyone
> who tries to clean it up. Editors with the best
> intentions but without the stomach for a fight try their
> best and end up being driven off after being
> reported for vandalism or 3RR violations, or
> just being wiki-stalked and hassled on any
> article they edit.

Oh, yes?  I assume you have an example at the ready, because surely 
no-one would have the gall to pull a statement like that out of their 
arse with no proof of it being true.

> To clean up these areas, any legitimate editor
> has to have the patience of a saint and an
> encylopedic (heh) knowledge of the Wikipedia
> rules system. He's got to be able to put up with the
> most extreme provocation and obvious bad faith...
> all the while smiling sweetly and assuming good
> faith while dozens of sock-puppets play stupid
> games. He's got to have the support of a group
> of editors, or a tame admin, to help him out too.

Most Wikipedians find that the support of other editors is trivial to 
achieve, if they're willing to treat their fellow Wikipedians with 
respect.  If it was not, we would not have thousands of editors who have 
been here for months, years.

As for knowledge of the Wikipedia rules, that's rot, too.  Knowing how 
to behave appropriately in a collaborative environment is useful (hint: 
don't be a dick), and having respect for our core principles, like 
neutrality and respect for copyright, even more so.  Wikipedia has too 
many rules, true, but you can get by quite happily without them if you 
just use common sense and keep in mind our principles.

I suspect, from what (admittedly little) I've seen from you, that you 
have neither the backing of policy nor common sense when you ride out on 
your high horse desperate to delete someone else's hard work.  Despite 
this minor issue, which others would consider crippling, you still 
insist on stamping your foot and complaining that you never get your own 
way.  And as for "consensus building", well, it's a beautiful dream, but 
you actually have to talk to people (as opposed to ranting at them for 
being too stupid to agree with you).

> Naturally, most editors don't have this. So the
> way Wikipedia is set up right now, under the
> auspices of welcoming newbies, is a vandal
> paradise that treats legitimate editors
> as an endless renewable resource. it uses them
> up and throws them away by giving them little or
> no support and instead it defends the rights of
> vandals to edit. It even makes the finding out
> of who is socking up a tedious and officious
> process... just for that extra kick in the teeth
> for legitimate editors who do play by the rules
> and are faced with those who don't.

Given the state of your earlier paragraphs, I'm rather surprised to find 
this one makes a modicum of sense.

I don't think we're too supportive of vandals or trolls.  We have a 
tendency to give some trolls more time than they deserve if they're 
clever enough to take up wiki-lawyering, but that's a by-product of the 
Process Wonk faction on Wikipedia.  We *are*, however, guilty --- very 
guilty indeed --- of taking good editors for granted.  It *is* important 
not to go biting newbies and generally being bureaucratic dicks for fear 
of them turning out to be "vandals", but we shouldn't do that at the 
expense of good editors.  There's no reason, however, for that to be an 
either-or proposition; any time legitimate editors are treated poorly 
for the sake of deliberately harmful editors, it's basically a stuff-up. 
  We aren't forced to choose between a newbie who could potentially be a 
good editor, and current good editors; and when we do, we're making a 
Mistake, regardless of which side we take.

As for the time it takes to run a checkuser, well, there are certain 
people who consider privacy important.  Crazy, I know.  What, do they 
have something to hide?  All right-thinking, red-blooded human beings 
owe it to themselves --- and us, damn it! --- to look under the beds of 
these people immediately, in case a Commie is hiding there.

> In summary, the system is broken. But you won't
> get any sense on this mailing list, because most
> of the people here don't actually edit Wikipedia
> these days. They just pontificate and have faith
> in some mystical power of the Wiki.

True, dat.  It's left to people like you, the brave reformers fighting 
the good fight against us crusty old bureaucrats to try to pull 
Wikipedia out of its death spiral.  Cobblers---sorry, I mean Cobb---we, 
who are about to die, salute you!


-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse