Giano retires, (again) Options

[Abd]

Priceless comment by Bishzilla.

That's the kind of comment that got her a short-block by Jimbo, about which she made a huge fuss. Bishonen is a diva, so this is is truly funny.

McBride deserved it, though. This is the real Wikipedia, folks, these are the highly respected users, unmasked. No gravitas. The "collaborative community?"

Well, McBride ain't a slouch in the diva department. Though in this case, he's playing Mary Wilson to Bishzilla's Diana Ross.

I wrote, long ago, that Bishonen missed a glorious opportunity to make a difference on Wikipedia. When Jimbo short-blocked her, she could have written, "Thanks for taking a firm stand for civility, the project needs it, and I'd gotten lax with myself."

You know, I'm now hanging out with people who, when confronted with their own interpersonal errors, let's call them, respond like that.

"You're right," and then they back up and revise their communication. They don't defend the errors or shortcomings. It's amazing to see. The world is not all like Wikipedia, eh?

[Zoloft]

Priceless comment by Bishzilla.

That's the kind of comment that got her a short-block by Jimbo, about which she made a huge fuss. Bishonen is a diva, so this is is truly funny.

McBride deserved it, though. This is the real Wikipedia, folks, these are the highly respected users, unmasked. No gravitas. The "collaborative community?"

Well, McBride ain't a slouch in the diva department. Though in this case, he's playing Mary Wilson to Bishzilla's Diana Ross.

I wrote, long ago, that Bishonen missed a glorious opportunity to make a difference on Wikipedia. When Jimbo short-blocked her, she could have written, "Thanks for taking a firm stand for civility, the project needs it, and I'd gotten lax with myself."

You know, I'm now hanging out with people who, when confronted with their own interpersonal errors, let's call them, respond like that.

"You're right," and then they back up and revise their communication. They don't defend the errors or shortcomings. It's amazing to see. The world is not all like Wikipedia, eh?

Part of my routine when I wake and prepare for work each day is to say a short reminder to myself—"Consider you may be incorrect, and admit it if you are."

It's saved me from many a compounded error over the decades.

[Abd]

Part of my routine when I wake and prepare for work each day is to say a short reminder to myself—"Consider you may be incorrect, and admit it if you are."

It's saved me from many a compounded error over the decades.

I'm sure. We can go further than that, we can admit that we are quite likely to be wrong in some way, i.e., that the "truth" is generally more than we know. I can be "right" about a thing, as to how I'm thinking about it, but be "wrong" in terms of achieving overall goals, because there is something I don't know, and I don't know that I don't know it.

For "wrong," there, read "ineffective."

The admission, then, is of fallibility, which we can admit even when we think that we are "right." One way that I managed to reconcile what I'm learning with my assertive habits was to realize that I want others, when they think they are right, to stand up for what they think. In fact, it's not necessary to be right to stand for what we think, it is really a choice, not a discovery of "truth."

In fact, if we seem to disagree, it may well be that we are both "right." We simply don't understand each other well enough, and that is a possibility that suggests and allows for growth and learning and transformation.

[Peter Damian]

Still not 'returned' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...GiacomoReturned Should be 'GiacomoNotReturned'.

Meanwhile

We desperately need a reliable way to profile editors: sort the vandal-fighters from the page formatters from the dablink fixers from the FA builders from the POV-pushing wackjobs. Until we can identify our users, we can't truly understand our problems, let alone fix them. Since we have all editing history - including deleted edits, very important - a reasonable profiling program can be written, but it would be a huge task. Still, if you want to do something about Wikipedia's future beyond incessant hand-wringing, the first step is to know thyself. --JaGatalk 18:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that Jimmy is talking about "experienced editors" (based on number of edits) and others are talking about "top editors" and "high-quality editors". Most of us can spot the flaw in the inference that they're the same. There are none so blind as those who will not see. 75.59.206.144 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I specifically acknowledged and discussed the difference between the two, so please take your insults elsewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you did not. Neither did I insult you. Why do you always try to pick a fight whenever any Wikipedian points out a serious concern? 75.59.206.144 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 13th February 2012, 2:26pm

[mbz1]

Retirement statement here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=475550962

Not the first time, of course, and I will open a book on when he is back. But, this seems a little, a trifle bit more serious than the others.

The points he makes are all perfectly valid, of course.

I am surprised to see such little response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GiacomoReturned

[EricBarbour]

He's got a sock. Still editing.
(If you can't figure the name out, you're sad.)

[chrisoff]

He's got a sock. Still editing.
(If you can't figure the name out, you're sad.)

I noticed that too. A blindingly obvious sock.