[WikiEN-l] drama and incivility

[Zoney]

On 28/08/2007, Aude <audevivere at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY
> Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive.  I like being informed
> about such matters relevant to Wikipedia.  Others like all "Go away, you
> trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list.   Am I the only one
> here annoyed with such messages?  Why can't we be more cordial and polite
> towards one another?  It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
>
> The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion
> about
> contributing to Wikipedia.  Why bother anymore?  I still like the ideals
> behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we
> can
> please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one
> another?  If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could
> use
> moderation.  Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not
> good.
>
> --
> Aude
>

I like the concept behind the project, but until it becomes a more
reasonable place to expend effort as a volunteer, I'm not going to launch
back in to full time contributions.

The fact is that Wikipedia cannot magically operate smoothly without doing
away with this mistaken ideology that random editors can force sensible
policies to coalesce. What it needs is the "Wiki model" not to be used for
policy, and for dedicated operators of the project, preferably with relevant
expertise and credentials to be appointed, sit down and form set-in-stone
ideals (or at least difficult to adjust, or with a formal method for
adjustment) for the project, and then state them clearly (as the project
will be biased as a result - fine as long as the bias is recognised -
attempts can even be made to make up for it). Article content would continue
to be worked on using the Wiki model, and disagreements would be more easily
dealt with from the point of view of simple clearly defined policies rather
than ones so complicated and contradictory as to allow essentially arbitrary
results from disputes based on the most persistent or influential parties in
the dispute.

At present Wikipedia suffers the same problems and more as any other
operation as regards bias and ideology, but problematically these are not
clear to outsiders (or even insiders) and not even consistent (certainly
whatever unstated principles people were adhering to when I began are not
the ones that are used now). I recently re-read WP:POINT and found it to be
a hideous draconian piece of nonsense that can be used against basically
anyone if there's enough people applying it to them.

I look forward to when I can justify spending my time freely on Wikipedia
again. Time I can otherwise use for a great many things.

Wikipedia's main contribution to me has been to instill a deep distrust of
any new phenomenon or Internet craze. There's no way I'm going near
Citizendium for example until it's firmly established it's credibility
amongst my peers. Even then I'll probably wait - my peers too were taken in
by Wikipedia at the beginning. I feel like the dwarves in the Narnia book,
"The Last Battle". Although I'm pretty certain my cynicism towards all "Web
2.0" nonsense is entirely justified -  it's almost the exact phrasing for "
Dot.com rerun"

Zoney

-- 
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...