[WikiEN-l] Admins shouldn't shoot back

[K P]

On 6/26/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > The issue of editors who don't have a clue about the topic can be a
> > problem, but one which is distinct from having no clue about the
> > project.  The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing
> > things that it becomes authoritarian.  While we cannot accept every
> > piece of idiocy that is added to an article, we still need to make room
> > for new ideas, and, even more importantly, newcomers need to feel
> > welcome and a part of the decision making process.
>
> This is much in accordance with what I am inadequately expressing. A
> couple of times here people have used "assume good faith" not in cause
> of civility, but in what amounts to making statements about human
> nature. In that wise we cannot afford it; a more realistic level of
> pessimism is called for.
>


"The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing things
that it becomes authoritarian.  "

This seems to be a problem with some projects and not others.  With
the botanists any article is more likely to be torpedoes from within
due to the non-authoritarian nature of the project, or lack of accord
among members on fundamental issues.  I don't think this is really a
problem so much as it is a reflection of the science and the exciting
times we live in as botanists today.

I've run into a couple of projects where the editors are locked into
their way of doing things, even when it is not WP:MOS (and to the
detriment of the reader), or not particularly useful.

Again, botany sets its own MOS, bu that is due to the problems
mentioned in the first paragraph.

I still find it much more useful to ask someone knowledgable on a
topic about an article's overall relevancy to Wikipedia, than to use
google or something to find information about which I know
nought--again, it removes some of the potential for idiocy (AfD:Rock
climbing).  It seems strange to start with the presumption of bad
faith from those who know a topic.  I don't want junkie plant articles
on Wikipedia--and we're very short-handed in this area.  What's so
difficult about asking the plant folks if an article belongs or not?
(I don't think I've ever seen a plant article up for deletion,
though--everyone knows animals, not plants.)

KP