[WikiEN-l] There are no pictures in Wikipedia any more

[Armed Blowfish]

On 24/09/2007, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> You want statistics? [snipped]
>
> Banned users and missing images are not related problems.

Hmmm, perhaps we should poll banned users and ask them
how many free images they *would* have contributed if they
had not been banned.

> If we
> unbanned everyone today, we would not be greeted with a flood
> of free images filling our articles.

Of course, because 83% of banned users are sitting at their
computers waiting for an unban notification from WP.

> If someone was banned, then it was likely for a good reason.

Likely?  Hmmm... perhaps I could go through the list of banned
users and put them into binary categories of 'banned for good
reason' and 'banned for bad reason', and then come up with a
statistic such as '89% of banned users were banned for a good
reason' or '7% of banned users were banned for a good reason'.
Perhaps I could try assigning a 128-bit integer value to the reasons
people were banned, such as a 1583 good reason or a -8372 good
reason, and average it all together, and find that the average
goodness of banning reasons is 2375 or -4947, and the median
goodness of banning reasons is 2194 or -7325.

> If it
> was not for a good reason, then their banning can be examined in the
> usual manner.  Their skill with photography and work providing images
> should allow them some extra slack, perhaps, but if things have
> progressed to the point where they were banned, then they have used
> up all of the slack we should provide to them.  Wikipedia has many
> skilled and talented people donating their time and while I don't wish
> to dismiss whatever good contributions these banned users have made,
> we also have many skilled and talented people who are capable of
> interacting with other users in a positive way and are able to adhere
> to our policies.  To be blunt, we are not so desperate for help that
> we need to put up with their crap, nor should we allow them to
> alienate the people who manage to contribute to Wikipedia without
> getting banned.

On a more serious note, isn't dismissing 'whatever good contributions
these banned users have made' exactly what happens in the banning
process?  And what slack does a person get when in a content dispute?
Negative slack, it seems.  Why should they put up with Wikipaedia's
crap?  And what is the appeals process but another opportunity to get
attacked, emotionally abused and possibly defamed?