[WikiEN-l] Reliable sources— some of these babies are ugly

[Charles Matthews]

Carcharoth wrote:
> Next thing you know, journalists will be reporting from blogs by
> Wikipedians and Wikimedians, Wikimedia blogs (some of those are
> semi-official at least) and even (gasp) from Wikipedia or Commons
> discussion pages! Some of the attitude displayed on internal project
> pages is rather shocking to anyone not used to the culture there, and
> despite some people saying (this is a hypothetical quote, not an
> actual one) "hey, maybe we could try and have a calm and reasonable
> debate without mud-slinging and personal insults"?
>
> i.e. the level of internal debate sometimes degenerates badly, but
> that has always been the case.
>   
It has always been something of a luxury. We all know this stuff: Don't 
force the issue/treat other editors as colleagues/don't come across like 
the The Self-Righteous Brothers (see [[Harry Enfield's Television 
Programme]]). That's one-and-a-half reasons against "executive 
decisions", plus one-and-a-half reasons for treating the decisions of 
others on their actual merits.

Has never stopped anybody much from creating drama. Fodder for WR and ED 
becomes fodder for WR, ED and Fox.

Why change the habits of a lifetime? Those who argue from abstract 
principles about our "local governance" will continue to do so. But it 
would be good if strongly-held opinions were relegated to blogs, in 
cases where the holder cannot help being divisive.

Charles
**