User:Giano/The_future, Giano shows leadership Options

[Mr. Mystery]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

[Casliber]

I'm not expected to be productive here.

I have seen no evidence that you have ever been productive at Wikipedia either, or that (in fact) anyone there is expected to produce anything in particular.

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning."

You left out a very salient point, and one which I think you would prefer to ignore: when they do run into the administrative apparatus of the site, the experience tends to convince them to find other pastimes. And yet, the administrativichiks, a caste of which you are a senior member, seem to think that this is not indicative of a problem.

I think there are signs this is changing. Some content contributors have gotten more involved this year and are sticking around thus far.

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.
Cas

[Peter Damian]

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.
Cas

This seems completely illogical and upside down. How is the primary objective of writing an encyclopedia consistent with this bland insouciance about putting off contributors? Explain.

'editorial synthesis'? - you mean Original Research? There is a huge amount of synthesis out there to inline reference just about everything. And if not, one has to wonder why no-one else has connected the dots before. I presume this is what you mean?
Cas

That is one of the stupidest things that has been said in this forum (and that is quite something).

Just reporting requires an amazing amount of synthesis to get the context right. Which is why journalis is crappy at that, since it has so little time and background knowledge. Medical rewview articles, which are NOT supposed to advance major new ideas, are written by Subject Matter Experts. They HAVE to be. It couldn't possibly be done otherwise.

Quite.

Hmmm, obviously synthesis is a fluid and multilevelled concept. Yes a whole article is a synthesis of sentences of sorts, but it is the micro-level, where one has fact 'a' and fact 'b' and is unable to connect them if the evidence is lacking. This OR safeguard works well in medical articles, where one has to be careful before jumping to conclusions if the proper evidence is lacking. My understanding of an encyclopedia was to report or reflect on current knowledge of a term, rather than synthesise new ideas as such.
Cas

This is also patently stupid and shows complete ignorance of what a reference work is.