G'day Charlotte,
On 5/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
#wikipedia is a wasteland of stupidity and a public relations disaster in lots of ways. It's also a lively and useful hangout for a lot of editors.
I welcome your thoughts on what, if anything, to do about this.
Identify people who are never, ever on-topic. Forward them to #social or #politics or #4chan or whatever would best suit them.
#wikipedia is not a big problem when it's off-topic. Sure, people sometimes chat about topics that some of our trolls think can cause embarrassment (drunkenness, gender issues, sexuality, bunking off work, bunking off school, whatever makes the trolls chuckle), but frankly, that's nobody's business but those who are participating at the time.
When it's on-topic, #wikipedia does indeed start to resemble a public relations disaster waiting to happen. That's when you get the idiotic comments about Daniel Brandt, or the threats, or the intentionally bad advice (funny to the regulars, but who knows what the lurkers are thinking?), or whatever.
You are the owner of XYZ Corp, whose article was recently vandalised. You're pretty cluey about stuff like IRC, so you decide to mosey on over to ask for an admin to keep an eye on the article for you. There you see:
XYZOwner: Hello, can someone help me with my company's article? CharlotteWebb: YOUR COMPANY's article? I think you mean WIKIPEDIA's article. RandomAdmin: I'd better track down this article. Looks like a sure-fire A10. DavidGerard: LOL, you tool. It's A11, duh. fuddlemark: Hey, fuck off, spammer. Go commit [[seppuku]]!
Compare this with entering the channel and finding:
XYZOwner: Hello, can someone help me with my company's article? CharlotteWebb: Hey, did anyone catch /The Simpsons/ last night? fuddlemark: Bah, /The Simpsons/ hasn't been worth watching since season 7. I'm thinking of calling in sick at work tomorrow though so I can watch the film, that might be cool. DavidGerard: Let's get drunk and talk about sexuality!
Cheers,