I don't think it's all that surprising that people who are increasingly in a damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't situation are getting fed up with being bashed on all sides (in some cases, deservedly so of course). It's not like they're getting paid...
I can also understand the view that this is just another attempt to co-opt critics and make them part of the system, but like I stated earlier, these folks aren't really "critics" in the sense of really thinking Wikipedia is utterly hopeless, or even having all that serious a problem with the way they're doing things. (Though I suppose Giano may be like that, to some extent.) And I seriously doubt they would have asked SlimVirgin to participate - you might as well just pull out the gun, aim it at your foot, and fire repeatedly.
There really are many, many people among the Faithful who consider themselves serious "internal critics" of the system, and have done for quite some time. Unfortunately, their idea of "WP criticism" usually amounts to "I've been telling you people for years that you have to ban anyone who shows the slightest bit of attitude, particularly towards me, or whatever I happen to be doing at the time." If the ArbCom is looking to propose realistic standards for treating people how they ought to be treated, well... it's like Kelly Martin says above - the list of opposers has a lot of people on it whom Wikipedia would be better off without, if it really wants to do that.
|