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:

[Kelly Martin]

Content authors, cantankerous or not, do not add much value to Wikipedia. Sure, they need some content in order to maintain the appearance of an encyclopedia, but they've already got that. At this point, what matters most to them is how many people they can suck in, and cantankerous content editors don't help at all in that regard. Getting rid of them is a no-brainer.

[melloden]

Content authors, cantankerous or not, do not add much value to Wikipedia. Sure, they need some content in order to maintain the appearance of an encyclopedia, but they've already got that. At this point, what matters most to them is how many people they can suck in, and cantankerous content editors don't help at all in that regard. Getting rid of them is a no-brainer.

Content authors don't mean much to the WMF, but they do mean more to Wikipedia than how many new users there are. Wikipedia has a bazillion shitty articles - we point them out on WR all the time - and it should be more useful to improve them rather than suck in more people. Of course, they're trying (and sometimes failing) to do both at once with the university outreach programs.

[Kelly Martin]

Content authors don't mean much to the WMF, but they do mean more to Wikipedia than how many new users there are. Wikipedia has a bazillion shitty articles - we point them out on WR all the time - and it should be more useful to improve them rather than suck in more people.

Your statements are all predicated on the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Since your premise is erroneous, your conclusions are unsound. Wikipedia is a social network, not an encyclopedia, and as a social network the thing that matters most is how many people you can suck in. It's actually in their interest to have lots of sucky articles: the urge to improve suckitude is a big motivator for sucking people in.

Simply put, Wikipedia doesn't really want good articles. They want lots and lots of middling and even bad articles, with just enough good articles that they can make a show about quality. If overall quality rose too high, too many people would be scared off from participation ("There's no way I could ever write anything that good"). Wikipedia isn't about educating poor children in Africa or anywhere else, or even about knowledge generally. No, indeed, the main mission of Wikipedia is spreading WikiLove.

[Malleus]

Simply put, Wikipedia doesn't really want good articles. They want lots and lots of middling and even bad articles, with just enough good articles that they can make a show about quality. If overall quality rose too high, too many people would be scared off from participation ("There's no way I could ever write anything that good").

That's a very interesting point that hadn't occurred to me.