[Foundation-l] Losing valuable contributors--some thoughts

[daniwo59 at aol.com]

Hello

With several prominent editors (Adam, Zero, and Viajero) declaring their 
intention to cut back their edits, quite a few thoughts spring to mind. I want to 
share them: 

1. This is a great loss. In their own way, each of these people contributed 
significantly to Wikipedia, and really helped improve the quality of articles, 
especially in controversial areas. 
2. I can understand their frustration. I myself have stopped editing most of 
the articles in which my professional expertise lies quite a long time ago. It 
can be annoying to argue with people who are not as invested in subject 
matter as we, who have devoted a large part of our professional and personal lives 
to, are.
3. In the end, no one is irreplaceable. People come and go. It is the nature 
of the Internet and of life. I say this with the deepest respect to the above 
contributors, and in the sincere hope that they will reconsider their 
decisions in some way or another. 
4. The points they raise are real, and should be addressed. 
5. It is inevitable that there will be controversy over the articles they 
write. There is such heated controversy over them in real life. I laud their 
efforts to dive into the fray (Zero and Viajero on the Middle East question; Adam 
on a broad range of topics)
6. One person's NPOV is another person's bias. 
7. Many newcomers, who will shoot down the compromise materials and reopen 
old wounds, are totally unaware of the hours that went into forging an 
acceptable compromise. 
8. Some people, unfortunately, are here for the sole purpose of pushing their 
POV, whether this is known to them or not.
9. The solutions that we developed to these kinds of problems when Wikipedia 
was smaller may not be effective at our current size. 
10. Nevertheless, people have recognized that the problems they point to are 
inherent in the system from quite a while ago. 
11. Resolving these issues is vital if we are to really grow--they are 
certainly questions that potential funders will ask. 
12. Lots of creative suggestions have already been made. See for example, 
[[Article validation]] on meta for some ideas. 

All that said, I urge Adam, Zero, and Viajero to rethink their decisions. I 
also ask them to contribute more actively to the discussion about validation 
that is taking place on meta, so as to help us find a solution to their concerns 
that is both viable and in keeping with Wikipedia's renown for openness. 
Flagging peer-approved versions may be one such option, but there are certainly 
others. 

Until a method is reached, I urge you to continue contributing to your other 
areas of expertise: Adam--Australian and ancient history; Zero--mathematics; 
Viajero--opera. At the same time, I also urge you to participate in more 
intense discussion of validation options, reform of arbitration procedures, and 
creative handling of rogue users. These should help to reduce the issues you 
raise. 

I am posting this to Foundation as well, because I think that many of the 
issues you raise apply to other projects, and not just English.

Danny