Should valued contributers be treated differently? Options

[mbz1]

I find this comment interesting:

If I was the boss of a company, I wouldn't fire my best employee for pissing off everyone else, especially if he or she actually gets shit done. Let's face it: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than five admins.

Why not let Malleus have immunity because of his usefulness? Is calling someone a cunt (even if regularly done over several years) that bad, considering this is the Internet?

If someone leaves Wikipedia "because" of Malleus, it's their choice.

Fetchcomms is mistaking: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than at least a hundred admins, probably more, but does it mean Malleus and other valued editors should be treated differently than not so valued, but good faith editors?

I have no answer to this question, but I would like to hear what others think about this matter. Thanks.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[mbz1]

I meant neither vandals nor trolls.
I meant only good faith editors.

For example, let's say Malleus who wrote many good articles has a dispute with jd turk whose only contributions is reverting vandalism.
If Malleus is banned, or even simply gets upset over a short block and leaves, it will be a loss for wikipedia.
If jd turk is banned or is driven away by Malleus, it would not be so much of a loss because there are many other users who could revert vandalism.
It will be very unfair to treat the users differently, but on the other hand to let Malleus go could be unfair towards wikipedia readers.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[jd turk]

For example, let's say Malleus who wrote many good articles has a dispute with jd turk whose only contributions is reverting vandalism.
If Malleus is banned, or even simply gets upset over a short block and leaves, it will be a loss for wikipedia.
If jd turk is banned or is driven away by Malleus, it would not be so much of a loss because there are many other users who could revert vandalism.
It will be very unfair to treat the users differently, but on the other hand to let Malleus go could be unfair towards wikipedia readers.

Here's the thing no one seems to want to acknowledge. Malleus (using one example) may be a good writer, but he's not unique. If he's banned because, just as an example, he knows his writing will grant him immunity when he rips other editors to shreds, then the encyclopedia won't shut down. It's a hive. It doesn't need a few really good contributors who are incapable of getting along with others. They need thousands of worker ants crawling all over the website, adding references and updating articles.

Their ongoing problems with retaining new editors, and keeping the old ones civil enough that talk pages don't turn into trolling internet forums go hand in hand.

WP doesn't want high-quality content. If they did, they'd hire high-quality writers. They want everyone in the world to contribute, regardless of ability, so everyone feels invested and will help a) add their content on articles they care about, and b) help pay for it.

[Peter Damian]

It's a hive. It doesn't need a few really good contributors who are incapable of getting along with others. They need thousands of worker ants crawling all over the website, adding references and updating articles.

That would be fine if there really were thousands of worker ants adding references to the articles on Aristotle, Civilisation, Philosophy etc and improving them. But there aren't. The worker ants just link to the Latvian Wikipedia, or change one sort of hyphen into another, or correct a spelling mistake while leaving poor grammar, poor style and false claims uncorrected.

How experts explain to non-experts that there are serious problems with the quality of Wikipedia? Oh that's right, they can't, because they aren't experts. Silly me.

WP doesn't want high-quality content.

So we agree, then.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: