Jimbo causes Blofeld to quit Options

[thekohser]

I don't know why so many "long-time editors" seem very surprised and indignant to discover that Jimmy Wales is a horrible manager of communities, and that he's basking in success and fame on the thankless labor served up by grunts who don't realize that Jimmy Wales keeps the architecture deliberately labor-intensive, because it's so addictive.

Good luck on the "outside", Blofeld!

[Dr. Blofeld]

Oh I've admitted I've spent way too much time on wikipedia and have certainly wasted my time with lots of articles on there and people. a] Its a waste of time creating tons of sub stubs about obscure countries and topics as very few are likely to expand them even if its a way of trying to increase scope and contributors. b] Its a waste of time having to explain myself to people who complain or try to delete things without bothering to do the research. c] Its a waste of time questioning the behaviour of admins or objecting and complaining as they always get their way, being Jimbo's allegiance. I'm proud of the good work I've done on wikipedia and don't see a problem with wanting to improve it. I actually enjoy writing articles like Chamba, Himachal Pradesh for example. My articles like Clint Eastwood etc are read by thousands of people every day and a lot of people have benefited from the information in the articles I've written. It is a shame of course that we personally don't receive any compensation for editing which is the biggest issue I think. If I thought the project as a whole was a waste of time I would never have contributed, I think it has massive potential. But I think unless the foundation give incentives to certain editors to edit/improve untouched/stale topics then it will remain very uneven in quality. I think most of us can agree here that Jimbo is not the ideal leader of wikipedia and it sucks that people do the work and he reaps the financial benefits. But wikipedia does have a great deal to offer from a learning point, even if it is severely lacking in many areas and most articles need improvement. But at the end of the day its just a website and I've spent way too much time on there.. Should I feel like returning in the future I will certainly try to reduce my input and time spent on the project and concentrate on things that bring me personal benefit...

[Somey]

Dr. B, I'll be frank with you and I hope you don't take it too personally. For the most part, we're saying "Wikipedia is a waste of your time" because we believe that any other approach won't really appeal to you. What people like me (and I would venture to say a few others in this thread) would rather be saying is, "look at how these activities of yours have affected others" - and in fact, this is the approach we took before you registered here. You could say that we're just trying to be nice, but that's a whole 'nother issue, really.

Let's take the three points you've made above:

a] Its a waste of time creating tons of sub stubs about obscure countries and topics as very few are likely to expand them even if its a way of trying to increase scope and contributors.

This, in particular, demonstrates an exceptionally self-serving, and almost blinkered, mindset. Red links are what keeps Wikipedia alive, because they attract new users. (If you can stomach the Blofeld-bashing, read this thread, esp. starting here.) Stubs don't attract new users at all. This is exactly why Jimbo dislikes you, because recruitment (and to a lesser extent, retention) is his primary concern, as would be true of any cult leader/figurehead.

b] Its a waste of time having to explain myself to people who complain or try to delete things without bothering to do the research.

And yet, the more articles you create, the more responsibility you give yourself for having to explain precisely those things. And if someone challenges you and you don't explain yourself, even when the person has no idea what he's talking about, you come off as hostile, opening yourself up for a civility/behavior violation. I believe this has already happened, in fact.

c] Its a waste of time questioning the behaviour of admins or objecting and complaining as they always get their way, being Jimbo's allegiance.

Personally, I wouldn't give Jimbo so much credit when it comes to supporting admin behavior. They're perfectly capable of circling their own wagons, with or without Jimbo to help them. What I think you have to ask yourself is, have you ever involved yourself in a situation in which an admin acted abusively, but that didn't already involve you intrinsically? In other words, a dispute (or whatever) that occurred on an article or topic area you never touched or had anything to do with? Or have you been worried that you'd be seen as a "busybody" and lose valuable goodwill points with the other admins?

The thing you can learn from someone like Eric Barbour, IMO, is not merely that a person can make a decent living by building signal-processing gear with vacuum tube technology in boxes emblazoned with obscenities. Rather, it's that there are people in the world who can say "I don't really care what other people think of me," and actually mean it, and still succeed in spite of that. It's not easy, but you could be that way too - I mean, why not? Moreover, when you don't care what other people think of you, your definition of "success" usually changes to something a lot more manageable and attainable.

It is a shame of course that we personally don't receive any compensation for editing which is the biggest issue I think.

And yet it's clearly not the biggest issue from a more general perspective, because Wikipedia is already far larger and more extensive than any professionally-produced (and traditionally-published) informational reference, all without paying the actual editors a dime. This fact is used time and again to "prove" that crowdsourcing is the best (or at least fastest and cheapest) way to acquire encyclopedic content on a massive scale. Concerns about quality are easily dismissed by pointing would-be critics to the roughly 5 percent of articles that are actually good - and given the numbers, even 5 percent (between 100K and 200K articles) is far more than any one person could critique in any sort of coherent fashion.

[Malleus]

Let's take the three points you've made above:

a] Its a waste of time creating tons of sub stubs about obscure countries and topics as very few are likely to expand them even if its a way of trying to increase scope and contributors.

This, in particular, demonstrates an exceptionally self-serving, and almost blinkered, mindset. Red links are what keeps Wikipedia alive, because they attract new users. (If you can stomach the Blofeld-bashing, read this thread, esp. starting here.) Stubs don't attract new users at all. This is exactly why Jimbo dislikes you, because recruitment (and to a lesser extent, retention) is his primary concern, as would be true of any cult leader/figurehead.

I've been rather critical in the past of Dr. Blofeld's "micro-stubs", or rather the sheer volume of them, as most will never be anything more. But you do raise an interesting point; creating an article is far easier than expanding or improving one, but far more highly valued, presumably because of its perceived attraction to new editors.