[Foundation-l] Wikiquote: to be, or not to be

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Pavlo Shevelo <pavlo.shevelo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> It's a real pity for me that you seemingly missed main point (or
> bottomline) of my message - please calm down and let's speak as "we"
> and as really equals.

I am perfectly calm, and I am working to calm down those from WQ who
are becoming angry and frustrated by this discussion. My point (which
is obviously not the same as yours is) is that this discussion is a
good thing and WQ stands to benefit from it if people take it
seriously. My summary: don't be upset that people want to close your
project, use it as an excuse to find the right reasons to not be
closed.

> No matter whether you're of the Wikipedian race or representative of
> smaller project, proud of withstanding aggressive critics some time
> ago IMHO (!) you have no right to speak to other in such a tone, which
> is snobbish in my perception

I'm sorry that you perceive me as being snobbish, that's not my intention.

> "That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger"
> (as to me I prefer "it is the north wind that made the vikings" ;)
> –the author is different)
> Was you aware that it's quotation when you wrote that? (I'm not going
> to drill now neither the level of rephrasing of the original "What
> does not kill me, makes me stronger" nor how close or far are that
> words in English to original text of Friedrich Nietzsche).

I am aware of Nietzsche's comment, although I'm also aware that it's
hard to get an accurate quotation in english. The phrase "that which
does not kill us makes us stronger" is a common phrase (at least in
America) derived from Nietzsche's comment.

> I'm saying that we in WQ are asking all these and many other questions
> (most of which are much more complicate) several times a day so there
> is no reason to push us to them or call us to face them.

This may very well be, and I was not aware that all of these issues
have been raised already on WQ. I'm also not talking directly to that.
I don't really care what you talk about at WQ, I care what people are
trying to talk about outside of WQ. My concern is the people who look
at this discussion with disgust and claim that these discussions are
made in bad faith, or that we should "speedy close" this discussion
because it's some kind of hate mongering. I'm trying to show that
these discussions are valuable to WQ and to the wider community, and
that the wider community should take it seriously.

> Your example with "Gettysburg Address" is piece of cake IMHO – this
> speech goes to WS.

To push the issue, may I ask why? What exactly is the criteria that
you use to say that one thing goes to WS and one thing goes to WQ?
Saying that it's a "piece of cake" only means the answer is obvious to
you.

> And criticism is one thing while… (I feel shortage in
> vocabulary again) is different. And your words "I've been on the
> receiving end of the "us and
> them" discussions on many occasions" reminds me another quotations of
> same author
>
> "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one"

I think you are attributing to my email more emotions, passions and
"tones" then I wrote it with. If what I said has any connection to
your monsters quote, I suggest it is in grammatical form only. I was
using my experience at Wikibooks as a way to relate to you and your
project, since we've been through similar discussions. Saying that you
respond only to particular forms of criticism isn't helpful, because
your most serious detractors are not going to offer you constructive
and civil criticisms. That doesn't mean that complaints you receive
are to be ignored.

> So don't be surprised that project closure in the thing
> (perhaps the only one) that we don't accept. Period. And please don't
> (pardon me) speculate around our strong negative emotions toward
> project closure (as well as caused by your tone) treating them as lack
> of will to (i) face (ii) thoroughly discuss (iii) properly solve real
> problems.

I haven't really said anything about project closure, and I waste no
emotions on it. If it's determined to be the right thing to do in a
pragmatic sense, then it's the path to be followed. If not, no
worries. I understand first hand the feelings of ownership that
members of a project experience. I also realize that those feelings
might cloud a person from making a reasonable decision on topics like
these.

My interest in this issue only extends so far as my general preference
for all WMF projects to succeed. I was hoping I could convince some
people that discussions like this about the worth of a project are a
necessary part of growth and maturation. Beyond that I really am not
able to be involved with the details of this particular discussion. I
wish you good luck with it.

--Andrew Whitworth