[WikiEN-l] Admins shouldn't shoot back

[David Goodman]

It can work the other way too--projects aren't closed. I've joined
projects that i think are moving in undesirable ways for the sake of
seeing and perhaps even modifying the arguments. If I know I have a
different attitude than the great majority, I say so when I join.

for example, I'm a member of both the Deletionism and the Incluclsion
project, & I'm by no means alone in doing this. I see a good number of
self-declared atheists in the various religion projects, and they are
usually helpful--they can know about religion too. Many Christians are
interested in Judaism, and vice versa.

Although there are lots of little worlds in WP, they do mix.   DGG

On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:52:42AM -0400, The Mangoe wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing
> >>points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular
> >>controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine
> >>that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that  most
> >>Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get
> >>to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um,
> >>problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
> >>
> >>
> >I think this is overly pessamistic and does not agree with my experience.
> >People who form a Project that invariably will attract people who "belong"
> >in the sense you suggest, step over backwards to ensure that their local
> >guidelines fit the core policies. They are often more critical of
> >articles on non-notable topics than other editors might be.  I think we
> >should all accept good faith here. I much bigger problem is the way some
> >editors who do not understand the topic really muck up the article. They
> >can join a Project but the Project will sort them out.
> >
> Wikiprojects can still be susceptible to a scaled back version of a lot
> of the issues that we face elsewhere.  Deletion issues need to be guided
> by the projects to minimize the effect of those who delete things
> because thay never heard of it.  I agree that they can be more critical
> of non-notable topics, but they have more to base their criticism on.
> Two separate Wikiprojects can indeed come to different conclusions about
> rules issues, and as long as neither is trying to impose its view on the
> other I have no problem with that.  Where the projects actually
> interface it must be a matter of negotiation.
>
> 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.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.