Jonathan + Adrian -- thank you for the thoughtful ideas. Seconding that:
~ We could use warmer, less confusing ways to handle edit conflicts,
deletion, and edit wars
~ We have the luxury of trying many approaches in different places, and
iterating
Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier
place?...
There is no such place... Have you been to a city?
Yes. Some disarmingly well-designed and welcoming, despite their density.
The question is not whether better equilibria exist; they do. It is why
they are often hard to recognize, try out, and adopt. Your insistence that
'there is no such place' is quite extraordinary, really: and highlights the
challenge.
Todd Allen writes:
Well, inclusionism generally is toxic.
<laugh> Smooth redefinition of terms. Jonathan's proposal was so kind +
specific, and you're spoiling for a fight.
Most of us have an opinion on inclu/delight, and would be glad to debate
it, but this thread isn't the place.
Pierre-Selim:
can people participating to this thread respect the
soft limit of this
mailing list, i.e. this is not a chat
Thanks for the reminder. More than one post per day in a thread is
probably too much...