QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 23rd March 2009, 10:12pm)
And more to the point: Was Gazimoff pushed out by
Durova's bullshit, or did he quit in general disgust?
No, I wasn't pushed out, although I was
disappointed. I wouldn't say I've retired in disgust, and would probably describe it more as a realignment of priorities.
QUOTE(Alex @ Mon 23rd March 2009, 10:23pm)
I don't think anyone here doubts that if we could start Wikipedia again: with real names, draft versions of articles before publishing, no RFA, no AN/I, no Arbcom, no/strict rules on BLPs etc etc, it would be 1000 times better than it is.
I'm not sure that this would result in any improvement. I would say that Wikipedia has been exemplary at demonstrating which areas of a collaborative project are strengthened by community involvement, which ones are weakened by it and which ones can cause a project to stagnate. I think I'll find the insight most useful.
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 24th March 2009, 3:25am)
That's the point, troubled child. Wikipedia needs to make a few changes, but those changes will never happen. At least not until change is forced upon it. That is why it matters when big name admins retire. Admins that are also ArbCom clerks, for example.
The difficulty lies in the manner of retirement. Yes, WP has many faults, but I fear that to list them as a litany of complaints would probably make me come across as a petulant teenager. But to risk it with the aim of setting the scene, I was never a big name admin. I didn't hang around the major noticeboards, and I didn't pump out blocks, page protections, or other similar behaviour. All I wanted was to perform tasks that were enjoyable and mildly intellectually satisfying, or where I felt I could improve the project or add value. I no longer feel that the latter is possible, and have little time in the grand scheme of things to support the former. As a result I guess retirement is inevitable, even if the statement only helps to draw a line under things.