[WikiEN-l] Admins shouldn't shoot back

[Ray Saintonge]

Gracenotes wrote:

>On 6/19/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 6/19/07, Gracenotes <wikigracenotes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On 6/19/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> 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."
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>Only if we want to create a culture that glorifies article creators and
>>>despises maintenance workers ...
>>>      
>>>
>>Gracenotes, you need to read what you're responding to. Someone else
>>made the analogy of admins and editors to "menial employees." It was
>>just an analogy; it said nothing about article creators v. maintenance
>>workers. The hyperbole has to stop, because it's just an attempt to
>>stoke things up.
>>    
>>
>I am aware that my paragraph is somewhat out of context, and is
>more meant as a general response to the so-called "culture" for which
>you've recently been advocating. But it's a piece of satire (so, like A
>Modest Proposal, it naturally employs hyperbole), and I hope to heaven
>that you realize that. 
>
When it comes to hyperbole and satire caution is warranted.  Not 
everybody gets it, and there are some who are a little quick to take it 
literally, especially if it seems that it is a veiled attack.  As I 
replied to Marc, when I use "menial" it simply refers to a low level 
domestic or other low skill job without any connotation about the more 
general worth of the person.

>Or else I shall get a wall to bang my head against.
>(Figuratively.) 
>
See Marc's references to the Head-On ads. :-)

>It's meant to intellectually stoke things up, to get people
>to *think* about things; I have talked to some editors who have indicated
>that they sense the atmosphere in some parts of Wikipedia discourages
>original thinking about extra-content situations. 
>
You're right.  This happens, but the problem with intellectual stoking 
is that it can sometimes get the fire burning a little too hot..  As 
much as I grok what you are trying to say, "original thinking" may be 
the wrong term here because it sails too close to that other hot-button 
subject, "original research".  There are some very serious social issues 
affecting Wikipedia, and finding common ground in these discouraging 
grounds is a huge challenge.

Ec