On 03/12/12 12:35 PM, George Herbert wrote:
Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as
to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a
real and quite serious problem if we don't hold senior and longtime
editors to account for abuses they may perpetuate on the Wiki.
The hue and cry of "But I contributed XZY!" is true, but irrelevant.
If one is abusive on the Wiki, one damages the community in deep and
divisive ways. Everyone needs to understand that. If you start
disrupting the community, no matter who you are or where you were, it
needs to stop.
This would be fine if all the established admins who abuse newbies were
held to the same standards.
But as has been said, Wikipedia is not a democracy. That's enough to
make secret Stalinist processes valid.
Ray
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Nathan<nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, James Heilman<jmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a
single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia
can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on
English Wikipedia but within the project as a whole and this is getting
worse rather than better. The foundation has been putting great efforts
into attracting editors and Will's case touches on the issue of recruitment
and retention of editors to the project as a whole and thus is directly
relevant to the WMF. We have had issues with how some admins treat new
editors to the movement and it seems we also have issues with how some of
our long standing editors are dealt with specifically by Arbcom. If we base
our decisions on isolated behavioral matters exclusively without taking
into account content issues or the contribution histories of the editors in
question this institution will make bad decisions for the project and the
movement as a whole.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
_______________________________________________
Are you suggesting that the WMF, or the Wikimedia community, should impose
or agitate for a policy on the English Wikipedia of immunizing prolific
contributors from conduct policies?
I'm not sure that would have your intended effect on retention. It has been
as commonly argued, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that we are already too lax
on vested contributors when it comes to conduct policy... and that this
veterans' privilege contributes to a sometimes poisonous atmosphere that
damages new editor recruitment and retention.
What might be more useful is the development of better tools to support
editors in difficult and important subject areas, better community
engagement in those areas, and a mechanism to intervene before the
battleground ethos overtakes otherwise sterling contributors.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
