[Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: "Big data" benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

Richard Farmbrough richard at farmbrough.co.uk
Mon Jan 14 09:53:46 UTC 2013

Yes, of course - why didn't we think of that?  Actually the lack of 
rules and lack of punishments means (meant) it was bloody hard to game 
the  system.  Now we have a calcified set of rules and an oligarchy, 
passive-aggressives have a field day.  Rules-lawyers abound, polite 
requests to the oligarchy are met with insults about "mind-set" and 
other newspeak comments. Meanwhile the 99% of editors that just want to 
edit and the 95% of admins that just want to help the project are 
stymied at every turn, scared to get involved in the processes.  A 
number of years ago the oligarchy destroyed hope (Esperanza) - now the 
Wikiquette noticeboard has gone.  Power is increasingly in fewer and 
fewer hands, a significant number of whom have, over the years, and 
indeed recently, abused that power.

The solution for social problems is socialisation.  We have some great 
exponents of that art in Dennis Brown, Worm That Turned and several 
others.  For those that won't be socialised, the solution is ostracism - 
or blocking as it is known.  Provided this is used with caution on 
community members, and with no longer duration than necessary it is a 
good solution.

On 04/01/2013 06:27, Tim Starling wrote:
> The solution for social problems is to have rules and a means to 
> punish people who break them.

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list