That "arcane lore" has resulted in the largest educational work ever
produced by humanity, and free for everyone both as in speech and as in
beer.
So I think we need to consider carefully before radically changing it. It
has worked, and worked unimaginably well, for most of two decades. That's
not to say it can't still be improved, but the proof is in the results. If
the English Wikipedia were badly broken, it wouldn't be a fixture of modern
life.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 11:54 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling us
that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What is
thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped in
the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep
others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess
Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive
arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a
problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends
and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution that
involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider,
in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was
not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was threatened
that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).
English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people
when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It
is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently
does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".
Keeping things as they were is not an option.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Also, I believe that the
near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and
that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument
can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a
modern
Wonder of the World. It's a towering
achievement of technology and
humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering
achievements,
it can't escape our flaws. The world is full
of toxic people. Released
from
the risk of being iced out of society or punched
in the face, they let
that
toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its
spaces - including
Wikipedia.
The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community
is going to solve this
problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has
survived
and thrived all this time alongside the struggles
of human interaction.
So
maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be
hands off and let the
forces
that created this "miracle" keep doing
their work, and for the community
of
the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with
the practical
realization
that success means just keeping temps below a
rolling boil.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>