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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
