[WikiEN-l] Admins shouldn't shoot back

[Ray Saintonge]

Marc Riddell wrote:

>Slim Virgin wrote:
>  
>
>>>Yet we persist in doing it here
>>>-- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are,
>>>or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse
>>>that adminship is "no big deal." Ditch that attitude, and we would
>>>quickly find a way to deal with some of our problems. So long as it's
>>>in place, there's no will to find creative solutions.
>>>      
>>>
>Menial:
>
>Adjective:
>1. lowly and sometimes degrading: menial work.
>2. servile; submissive: menial attitudes.
>   pertaining to or suitable for domestic servants
>
>Noun:
>4. a domestic servant.
>5. a servile person.
>
>‹Synonyms 2. fawning. See servile. 4. attendant, underling, hireling,
>lackey.
>‹Antonyms 1. dignified. 2. proud.
>
>(Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)
>
>Is this a word we really want to use to describe ANYONE who is a member of
>the Wikipedia Community?
>
Since I rather than Slim introduced the word "menial" I should comment 
on the matter, though it appears from her context that she has 
interpreted the word correctly. It appears that Canadian usage of this 
word more closely follows British usage than American usage. Thus my 
2001 New Oxford refers only to jobs which lack skill or prestige and to 
domestic servants. Since the word applies merely to those who perform 
the least prestigious tasks there is no need to imply that the work is 
necessarily degrading. Similarly, the fact that an individual may only 
perform unskilled physical labour for his employer should not imply that 
he is necessarily degraded or submissive.

The descent into disparagement appears to be an Americanism. Does Random 
House give any evidence for the drift that it applies to the word?

>on 6/19/07 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:
>  
>
>>Creative solutions depend on
>>the ability and willingness to take risks <snip> A community of people who
>>    
>>
>follow rules to the letter, and
>  
>
>>are too afraid to be bold are rarely able to get out of the box that
>>they have created for themselves.
>>    
>>
>This appears to be especially true when it comes to discussing the
>leadership and structure vacuums within Wikipedia. It is easy to simply not
>respond on a List such as this, but how would you react if asked about this
>in person, face to face?
>
What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is 
only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression 
that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our 
activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere.

In an American context the principals laid down in the Federalist Papers 
were at least thought out, but now the politicians often behave in a 
manner that is inconsistent with those principles. (Just watch the way 
that CNN's Lou Dobbs carries on.) At one time the purpose of religion 
was to bring people together in a common belief, and that did bring 
people together. In some communities it still does. But with the notion 
of God being brought into question it pulls the rug out from beneth the 
feet of those who used God as a major premise upon which to establish 
all their other beliefs. If the notion of God is really total nonsense, 
how do you convince the true believers of that without producing a 
psychological basket case.

Children are told certain received truths by their parents and 
terachers, but they go online and with minimal research find out that 
those received truths are completely wrong. The parents are relatively 
clueless about the online world. Evil as they may be, the sexual 
predators remain only a tiny part of the problem. At least we can catch 
them and cut their balls off. But how do you protect kids against anomie 
when you don't even understand what it is? How do you convincingly say 
"Trust me" to someone when they've heard it so often before. What we are 
getting now in this paradigm shift of communications is the first broad 
generation of disbelief, and Kuhn did warn us that in the great paradigm 
shifts there will be significant losses.

I apologize if this appears as a rant of unremitting pessimism, and if I 
detect a suggestion of paranoia in Slim's comments I hope it's not taken 
as too personal. I fully appreciate that she has suffered unjust 
treatment by certain online persons, but I would fervantly hope that she 
can work with some of us who would prefer to find some basis for 
developpin a more trustful environment.

>>That's not a small group when you
>>remember that most of our teachers were also stuck in a box, and
>>probably never knew how to teach their students to get out of the box.
>>    
>>
>Let us resolve to be better teachers for our students.
>
We need to teach ourselves first.

Ec