User:Giano/The_future, Giano shows leadership Options

[Mr. Mystery]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

[Peter Damian]

More proof that Wikipedia is now a form of entertainment.

I am one of the top content contributors here and I am able to get along just fine. The system isn't broken. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[RMHED]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

Giano is the ultimate masochist, show him a brickwall and he'll want to bang his head against it.
This is a marvellous exercise in futility and a fine example of an individuals inability to learn from the past.

[Giano]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

Giano is the ultimate masochist, show him a brickwall and he'll want to bang his head against it.
This is a marvellous exercise in futility and a fine example of an individuals inability to learn from the past.

Oh c'mon - give me a chance.

2 years ago the very idea would have been unthinkable. Things are getting better, albeit too slowly. If no one tries then no one gets anywhere. I am determined to change things there for the better, more liberal and democratic - and many others appear to feel in a similar way - the aim is to build a concencus of opinion over what is wrong - no one has openly tried that before (on Wiki at least) and lived to tell the tale.

Give the page a chance - go (those of you who still can) and opine. Sooner or later things will get better, but they won't if people just sit here moaning saying "waste of time."

Giano

[Nerd]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

Giano is the ultimate masochist, show him a brickwall and he'll want to bang his head against it.
This is a marvellous exercise in futility and a fine example of an individuals inability to learn from the past.

Sooner or later things will get better, but they won't if people just sit here moaning saying "waste of time."

Giano

That's what the majority of Wikipedians do best! Moaning, groaning, and generally avoiding editing articles.

[MZMcBride]

More proof that Wikipedia is now a form of entertainment.

Personally, I find Wikipedia Review far more entertaining. I get the same level of interactivity as Wikipedia, but I'm not expected to be productive here. It's nice. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[trenton]

diff

However, please don't cloud the issues with hysterical nonsense and drama.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Pot, meet kettle.

edit: although to be fair, hysterical nonsense and drama are basically the only ways to get attention and change at wikipedia.

This post has been edited by trenton:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

More proof that Wikipedia is now a form of entertainment.

Personally, I find Wikipedia Review far more entertaining. I get the same level of interactivity as Wikipedia, but I'm not expected to be productive here. It's nice. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Oh, come now, can you really claim that you were expected to be productive at Wikipedia? The main difference is that it is rather difficult to get banned from the Review. Plus, we seldom discuss Pokemon.

[Kato]

Oh good, Peter Jackson has a view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giano/Th...y_Peter_jackson

View by Peter jackson

I'll make no comment on the constitutional issues mainly discussed above, not having investigated them. What I want to see is an effective system for resolving content disputes & enforcing content policy, & I'd welcome a debate that includes this issue. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No wonder that King Kong remake was such a crock.

[Newyorkbrad]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

Giano is the ultimate masochist, show him a brickwall and he'll want to bang his head against it.
This is a marvellous exercise in futility and a fine example of an individuals inability to learn from the past.

Sooner or later things will get better, but they won't if people just sit here moaning saying "waste of time."

Giano

That's what the majority of Wikipedians do best! Moaning, groaning, and generally avoiding editing articles.

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning." Assuming that the editors who tend to be discussed on WR typify the majority of Wikipedians' experiences or behaviors is a fallacy.

[A Horse With No Name]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

Giano is the ultimate masochist, show him a brickwall and he'll want to bang his head against it.
This is a marvellous exercise in futility and a fine example of an individuals inability to learn from the past.

I am waiting for Xeno to show up and harass him again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

More proof that Wikipedia is now a form of entertainment.

To semi-quote the cast of "The Band Wagon" -- that's entertainment? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning." Assuming that the editors who tend to be discussed on WR typify the majority of Wikipedians' experiences or behaviors is a fallacy.

Okay, so the voice of ArbCom says the majority of Wikipedia contributors only show up only when they are bored, barely do anything once they arrive, and aren't worth talking about once they leave? Gotcha! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning." Assuming that the editors who tend to be discussed on WR typify the majority of Wikipedians' experiences or behaviors is a fallacy.

Okay, so the voice of ArbCom says the majority of Wikipedia contributors only show up only when they are bored, barely do anything once they arrive, and aren't worth talking about once they leave? Gotcha! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Yeah, but Brad's observation explains why nobody reads WR. And also why the list of stuff over at WP:PERRENIAL is so short: good ideas from the few that care are adopted immediately, and most of the rest of editors aren't interested in politics, meta-issues, or the like; they just want to write.

AND, for free: Brad's comments explain why WP:LAME is so short: it was written as a humor piece by a few commedians, and doesn't really mirror what actually happens on WP. That's stuff's funny, but is not like it's real.

Not least, why a mighty team of 13 arbitrators (or whatever the number is now that another is disgraced) can take care of all the vast warring on WP and keep it going so smoothly. It's because the rest of us don't worry our pretty heads about it much, and leave it to the smarties who like that kind of thing. Genius lawyers and stuff.

Glad to be a Beta! Alphas work SO hard.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Oh c'mon - give me a chance.

Don't sweat it, Giano...Horsey loves you! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Yeah, but Brad's observation explains why nobody reads WR.

Well...Brad reads it! And I wouldn't call Brad a "nobody." (A "fullbody" perhaps!) In fact, I would never call anybody a nobody...except A Nobody, of course, since that's his name. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[Milton Roe]

Yeah, but Brad's observation explains why nobody reads WR.

Well...Brad reads it! And I wouldn't call Brad a "nobody." (A "fullbody" perhaps!) In fact, I would never call anybody a nobody...except A Nobody, of course, since that's his name. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

As the great Yogi Berra was want to say: "Nobody drives in the city; there's too much traffic."

[A Horse With No Name]

As the great Yogi Berra was want to say: "Nobody drives in the city; there's too much traffic."

Gotta love the Yogi aphorisms. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Milton Roe]

As the great Yogi Berra was want to say: "Nobody drives in the city; there's too much traffic."

Gotta love the Yogi aphorisms. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

There's that wisdom which hard to nail down, but is in there somwhere:

"You can observe a lot just by looking." That one comes in handy in science. It's one of the favorite sayings of researchers. I've known some terrible observers. They saw but didn't look. Or looked but didn't see.

"Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't come to yours." This seems quite reasonable, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

As the great Yogi Berra was want to say: "Nobody drives in the city; there's too much traffic."

Gotta love the Yogi aphorisms. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

There's that wisdom which hard to nail down, but is in there somwhere:

"You can observe a lot just by looking." That one comes in handy in science. It's one of the favorite sayings of researchers. I've known some terrible observers. They saw but didn't look. Or looked but didn't see.

"Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't come to yours." This seems quite reasonable, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Yogi Berra and Giano? Hey, when would you ever think of having those two great minds mentioned together? All this thread needs is Patti LaBelle...and here she is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcWQMRCuJvo&feature=featured (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Casliber]

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning." Assuming that the editors who tend to be discussed on WR typify the majority of Wikipedians' experiences or behaviors is a fallacy.

I can second that - after two years editing articles and being involved in wikiprojects, all the arb-related pages, disputes, policy pages etc were like some surreal parallel wikipedia with all different people.
Cas

[Kelly Martin]

I'm not expected to be productive here.

I have seen no evidence that you have ever been productive at Wikipedia either, or that (in fact) anyone there is expected to produce anything in particular.

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning."

You left out a very salient point, and one which I think you would prefer to ignore: when they do run into the administrative apparatus of the site, the experience tends to convince them to find other pastimes. And yet, the administrativichiks, a caste of which you are a senior member, seem to think that this is not indicative of a problem.

[Newyorkbrad]

I'm not expected to be productive here.

I have seen no evidence that you have ever been productive at Wikipedia either, or that (in fact) anyone there is expected to produce anything in particular.

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning."

You left out a very salient point, and one which I think you would prefer to ignore: when they do run into the administrative apparatus of the site, the experience tends to convince them to find other pastimes. And yet, the administrativichiks, a caste of which you are a senior member, seem to think that this is not indicative of a problem.

This calls for a thoughtful response, which will be easier to provide when I am more awake, so I will return to this thread sometime tomorrow.

[Casliber]

I'm not expected to be productive here.

I have seen no evidence that you have ever been productive at Wikipedia either, or that (in fact) anyone there is expected to produce anything in particular.

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning."

You left out a very salient point, and one which I think you would prefer to ignore: when they do run into the administrative apparatus of the site, the experience tends to convince them to find other pastimes. And yet, the administrativichiks, a caste of which you are a senior member, seem to think that this is not indicative of a problem.

I think there are signs this is changing. Some content contributors have gotten more involved this year and are sticking around thus far.

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.
Cas

[Kelly Martin]

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.

I remain to be convinced of that. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (at least not one that any sensible person would be proud of), nor is it (as far as I can tell) getting any closer to being one. Its policies have been trending away from, not toward, positions that I would think likely to be conducive to the production of encyclopedic content, especially with the extremely strong (but very inconsistently enforced) proscription against editorial synthesis, which is, for all intents and purposes, the gravamen of the encyclopedia form.

I, personally, believe this is because of the general intellectual immaturity of the bulk of Wikipedia's editors (not to mention its Illustrious Leader), combined (of course) with the vested interests engaged in pitched battle. The former does not understand intellectual competence and so has no cause to value it, and the latter rightfully sees it as a threat, and these two forces combined to stamp out competence whenever they blunder across it.

[Casliber]

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.

I remain to be convinced of that. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (at least not one that any sensible person would be proud of), nor is it (as far as I can tell) getting any closer to being one. Its policies have been trending away from, not toward, positions that I would think likely to be conducive to the production of encyclopedic content, especially with the extremely strong (but very inconsistently enforced) proscription against editorial synthesis, which is, for all intents and purposes, the gravamen of the encyclopedia form.

I, personally, believe this is because of the general intellectual immaturity of the bulk of Wikipedia's editors (not to mention its Illustrious Leader), combined (of course) with the vested interests engaged in pitched battle. The former does not understand intellectual competence and so has no cause to value it, and the latter rightfully sees it as a threat, and these two forces combined to stamp out competence whenever they blunder across it.

'editorial synthesis'? - you mean Original Research? There is a huge amount of synthesis out there to inline reference just about everything. And if not, one has to wonder why no-one else has connected the dots before. I presume this is what you mean?

Re paragraph two, yes there are trouble spots, and yes there are vested interests, but these trouble areas take up alot of observation space at WR and blogs etc. Stuff which fares well is pretty boring to write about - lack of teh dramaz. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Pray tell me which intellectual competence you've seen stamped out?
Cas

[Milton Roe]

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.

I remain to be convinced of that. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (at least not one that any sensible person would be proud of), nor is it (as far as I can tell) getting any closer to being one. Its policies have been trending away from, not toward, positions that I would think likely to be conducive to the production of encyclopedic content, especially with the extremely strong (but very inconsistently enforced) proscription against editorial synthesis, which is, for all intents and purposes, the gravamen of the encyclopedia form.

Did you get that, Casliber? She's right and it's a devastating return. The POINT of any encyclopedia is to be sythethic (that's close to the definition of what an encylopedia article IS), and yet, speaking strictly, you've outlawed this. In your incredibly hypocritical way, your entire enterprise as Wikipedia survives ONLY upon the work of people who explicitly violate your rules in order to continue it. Many of us have realized this for years, and said it to you regularly.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

But you ignore it. You're required to ignore it as part of the faith.

That one of the weirdest things about Wikipedia. It's certainly on my short-list of the "single mad belief" which qualifies an enterprise as a "religion." You know-- the one belief (like body thetans detectable with an E-meter), that's patently nutso, but that you're all officially required not to notice IS nutso? As part of the deal?

[Casliber]

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.

I remain to be convinced of that. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (at least not one that any sensible person would be proud of), nor is it (as far as I can tell) getting any closer to being one. Its policies have been trending away from, not toward, positions that I would think likely to be conducive to the production of encyclopedic content, especially with the extremely strong (but very inconsistently enforced) proscription against editorial synthesis, which is, for all intents and purposes, the gravamen of the encyclopedia form.

Did you get that, Casliber? She's right and it's a devastating return. The POINT of any encyclopedia is to be sythethic (that's close to the definition of what an encylopedia article IS), and yet, speaking strictly, you've outlawed this. In your incredibly hypocritical way, your entire enterprise as Wikipedia survives ONLY upon the work of people who explicitly violate your rules in order to continue it. Many of us have realized this for years, and said it to you regularly.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

But you ignore it. You're required to ignore it as part of the faith.

That one of the weirdest things about Wikipedia. It's certainly on my short-list of the "single mad belief" which qualifies an enterprise as a "religion." You know-- the one belief (like body thetans detectable with an E-meter), that's patently nutso, but that you're all officially required not to notice IS nutso? As part of the deal?

Hmmm, obviously synthesis is a fluid and multilevelled concept. Yes a whole article is a synthesis of sentences of sorts, but it is the micro-level, where one has fact 'a' and fact 'b' and is unable to connect them if the evidence is lacking. This OR safeguard works well in medical articles, where one has to be careful before jumping to conclusions if the proper evidence is lacking. My understanding of an encyclopedia was to report or reflect on current knowledge of a term, rather than synthesise new ideas as such.
Cas

This post has been edited by Casliber:

[Milton Roe]

Hmmm, obviously synthesis is a fluid and multilevelled concept. Yes a whole article is a synthesis of sentences of sorts, but it is the micro-level, where one has fact 'a' and fact 'b' and is unable to connect them if the evidence is lacking. This OR safeguard works well in medical articles, where one has to be careful before jumping to conclusions if the proper evidence is lacking. My understanding of an encyclopedia was to report or reflect on current knowledge of a term, rather than synthesise new ideas as such.
Cas

Just reporting requires an amazing amount of synthesis to get the context right. Which is why journalism is crappy at that, since it has so little time and background knowledge. Medical review articles, which are NOT supposed to advance major new ideas, are written by Subject Matter Experts. They HAVE to be. It couldn't possibly be done otherwise.

[aeon]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

Giano is the ultimate masochist, show him a brickwall and he'll want to bang his head against it.
This is a marvellous exercise in futility and a fine example of an individuals inability to learn from the past.

Oh c'mon - give me a chance.

2 years ago the very idea would have been unthinkable. Things are getting better, albeit too slowly. If no one tries then no one gets anywhere. I am determined to change things there for the better, more liberal and democratic - and many others appear to feel in a similar way - the aim is to build a concencus of opinion over what is wrong - no one has openly tried that before (on Wiki at least) and lived to tell the tale.

Give the page a chance - go (those of you who still can) and opine. Sooner or later things will get better, but they won't if people just sit here moaning saying "waste of time."

Giano

A month back you were convinced you were gone forever. "[W]hen I unfairly snapped at one of my kids who wandered into the study for a hug, I realised the time had come.", you said. What a load of hogwash now, hey? Now you're playing Wikipioneer and Leader into the Future.

Hate to say it, but I told you so: "Because, let's face it, you'll be back in a month anyway."

To the content of the page itself I won't be so critical. It's futile, of course, but a good read and an interesting approach.

[Peter Damian]

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.
Cas

This seems completely illogical and upside down. How is the primary objective of writing an encyclopedia consistent with this bland insouciance about putting off contributors? Explain.

'editorial synthesis'? - you mean Original Research? There is a huge amount of synthesis out there to inline reference just about everything. And if not, one has to wonder why no-one else has connected the dots before. I presume this is what you mean?
Cas

That is one of the stupidest things that has been said in this forum (and that is quite something).

Just reporting requires an amazing amount of synthesis to get the context right. Which is why journalis is crappy at that, since it has so little time and background knowledge. Medical rewview articles, which are NOT supposed to advance major new ideas, are written by Subject Matter Experts. They HAVE to be. It couldn't possibly be done otherwise.

Quite.

Hmmm, obviously synthesis is a fluid and multilevelled concept. Yes a whole article is a synthesis of sentences of sorts, but it is the micro-level, where one has fact 'a' and fact 'b' and is unable to connect them if the evidence is lacking. This OR safeguard works well in medical articles, where one has to be careful before jumping to conclusions if the proper evidence is lacking. My understanding of an encyclopedia was to report or reflect on current knowledge of a term, rather than synthesise new ideas as such.
Cas

This is also patently stupid and shows complete ignorance of what a reference work is.

[everyking]

I think there are signs this is changing. Some content contributors have gotten more involved this year and are sticking around thus far.

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.
Cas

Some serious content contributors don't want to get involved with adminstrative issues. Others, as you might recall, are not allowed to get involved in administrative issues. I don't think there are very many who fall into neither group. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[MBisanz]

Two concepts that have served me well on Wikipedia and in real life are accept change gracefully and be able to admit when you are wrong. Somehow I doubt the page in question would be playing out the way it is if the leaders on both sides were following these concepts.

[Kelly Martin]

Hmmm, obviously synthesis is a fluid and multilevelled concept. Yes a whole article is a synthesis of sentences of sorts, but it is the micro-level, where one has fact 'a' and fact 'b' and is unable to connect them if the evidence is lacking. This OR safeguard works well in medical articles, where one has to be careful before jumping to conclusions if the proper evidence is lacking. My understanding of an encyclopedia was to report or reflect on current knowledge of a term, rather than synthesise new ideas as such.

It's times like these that I find it hard to believe that you're college-educated, and yet I do seem to recall that you have some form of postgraduate training. Thank you for demonstrating exactly the sort of intellectual immaturity that I was referring to earlier. Is this perhaps just the thought-stopping influence of the Wikicult at work?

[sbrown]

Some serious content contributors don't want to get involved with adminstrative issues. Others, as you might recall, are not allowed to get involved in administrative issues. I don't think there are very many who fall into neither group.

Anyone whose a serious editor and also an admin so knows whats really going on is very likely to get sick and leave.

[Cla68]

I'm not expected to be productive here.

I have seen no evidence that you have ever been productive at Wikipedia either, or that (in fact) anyone there is expected to produce anything in particular.

Actually, a majority of Wikipedia editors stick pretty much to editing articles whenever they happen to be in the mood. They have at most incidental or occasional involvement with the whole administrative apparatus of the site, or the various opportunities it provides for "moaning and groaning."

You left out a very salient point, and one which I think you would prefer to ignore: when they do run into the administrative apparatus of the site, the experience tends to convince them to find other pastimes. And yet, the administrativichiks, a caste of which you are a senior member, seem to think that this is not indicative of a problem.

I've had the ANI forum on my watchlist for about two years now. I agree that Wikipedia's admins are probably doing a better job now than they were three years ago when I first started editing. If you look at ANI, however, some posts still go unanswered and some still don't get resolved even after rounds of inane discussion by various admins.

What Wikipedia needs is more structure for admins, a "how to" guide that gives standard responses and block lengths for the same types of problems that occur over and over. The admins need some type of elected admin guidance committee, to which they can go to with questions or concerns instead of the unofficial, teen-age admin mutual admiration society which exists in the IRC forums. Perhaps a forum which can be seen by everyone, but which only admins can edit. An admin appeal board, such as Tony1 has been working on, needs to be formally established. When admins make good or bad decisions, such board needs to annotate this on a scorecard for each admin which everyone can see.

Every editor with 4,000 main space edits should be automatically granted adminship, but it also needs to be much easier to desysopp incompetent or inactive admins. If an admin performs no administrative actions within a six-month period, they should be automatically desysopped in order to influence admins to at least help out a little with admin work.

I am also not necessarily convinced that is a problem as the primary objective is still writing an encyclopedia.

I remain to be convinced of that. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (at least not one that any sensible person would be proud of), nor is it (as far as I can tell) getting any closer to being one. Its policies have been trending away from, not toward, positions that I would think likely to be conducive to the production of encyclopedic content, especially with the extremely strong (but very inconsistently enforced) proscription against editorial synthesis, which is, for all intents and purposes, the gravamen of the encyclopedia form.

I have done synthesis in several of the featured articles that I have written. Synthesis is sometimes necessary in order to completely explore the topic of an article. If you do it right, the only people who will object are POV-pushers. Aren't we taught in school in the west to synthesize what we read in our sources when we report on something? In those instances, we're graded on the quality of our synthesis, i.e. if we're able to back it up with an argument that makes sense after looking at our supporting sources. For example, this section which I wrote, is synthesis. Check the sources. So far, no one has objected to it, even though the article was featured on the main page and was looked-at by more than 100,000 readers. So I'm thinking that I did it right.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[A Horse With No Name]

Anyone whose a serious editor and also an admin so knows whats really going on is very likely to get sick and leave.

A serious editor and also an admin? What's wrong with that sentence? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Malleus]

Anyone whose a serious editor and also an admin so knows whats really going on is very likely to get sick and leave.

A serious editor and also an admin? What's wrong with that sentence? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

To be fair, I can think of quite a few who fit that bill. A few of them on here even.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[A Horse With No Name]

Anyone whose a serious editor and also an admin so knows whats really going on is very likely to get sick and leave.

A serious editor and also an admin? What's wrong with that sentence? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

To be fair, I can think of quite a few who fit that bill. A few of them on here even.

To be frank, I cannot name any person on Wikipedia who improved as an editor after becoming an admin. I am, however, finding a lot of admins who had some degree of editorial skill and human resources talent before their RfAs but almost immediately became sloppy, touchy and puerile afterwards. A few of them on here even!

[Casliber]

I have done synthesis in several of the featured articles that I have written. Synthesis is sometimes necessary in order to completely explore the topic of an article. If you do it right, the only people who will object are POV-pushers. Aren't we taught in school in the west to synthesize what we read in our sources when we report on something? In those instances, we're graded on the quality of our synthesis, i.e. if we're able to back it up with an argument that makes sense after looking at our supporting sources. For example, this section which I wrote, is synthesis. Check the sources. So far, no one has objected to it, even though the article was featured on the main page and was looked-at by more than 100,000 readers. So I'm thinking that I did it right.

I'd have to read them in a book somewhere sometime. This is the problem really in that we have allowed synthesis (everything is sourced and derives from a source, but it is how you put them together - the sentences reflect what the sources say, right?) and not-allowed synthesis (big time de novo construction of ideas.)

Cas

[Peter Damian]

I know Giano's a bit weak on the spelling front but ....

[edit] The future|User: Giano|The future
Yor comments on the above page are welcome. However, could you please confine off subject comments to Ottava Rimmmer to the talk page (there is an appropriate section). This is an attempt to keep the main page concise and on-subject. Thank you. Giano (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. That's an interesting spelling of his name there. Peter Damian (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian"

[my emphasis]

[RMHED]

User:Giano/The_future.

Good luck with that.

Giano is the ultimate masochist, show him a brickwall and he'll want to bang his head against it.
This is a marvellous exercise in futility and a fine example of an individuals inability to learn from the past.

Oh c'mon - give me a chance.

2 years ago the very idea would have been unthinkable. Things are getting better, albeit too slowly. If no one tries then no one gets anywhere. I am determined to change things there for the better, more liberal and democratic - and many others appear to feel in a similar way - the aim is to build a concencus of opinion over what is wrong - no one has openly tried that before (on Wiki at least) and lived to tell the tale.

Give the page a chance - go (those of you who still can) and opine. Sooner or later things will get better, but they won't if people just sit here moaning saying "waste of time."

Giano

I wish you luck, you'll need an incredible amount to effect real change.

Do consensus and democracy go together? Democracy is about counting the numbers consensus is somewhat more subtle.

Is a democratic Wikipedia likely to be more inviting, or is democracy itself a form of totalitarianism that doesn't recognise those who operate outside the democratic system?

Democracy is a dirty word used by the nation state to justify its aggressive excesses against those deemed outlaw.

[Lar]

To be frank, I cannot name any person on Wikipedia who improved as an editor after becoming an admin.

I wrote my first(1) FA after becoming an admin. Whether that's a sign that I improved as an editor is not necessarily clear to me

1 - and so far, my only one... writing an FA takes a significant chunk of time. Or did me anyway.