The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> User:Giano/The_future, Giano shows leadership
Casliber
post Wed 24th June 2009, 4:40am
Post #21


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri 19th Oct 2007, 10:08pm
Member No.: 3,559

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 2:16pm) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 7:05pm) *
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.


QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 7:50pm) *
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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 24th June 2009, 5:03am
Post #22


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:40pm) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Casliber
post Wed 24th June 2009, 5:17am
Post #23


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri 19th Oct 2007, 10:08pm
Member No.: 3,559

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 3:03pm) *

QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:40pm) *
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. biggrin.gif

Pray tell me which intellectual competence you've seen stamped out?
Cas
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 24th June 2009, 5:22am
Post #24


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:03pm) *

QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:40pm) *
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.

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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Casliber
post Wed 24th June 2009, 5:36am
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri 19th Oct 2007, 10:08pm
Member No.: 3,559

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 24th June 2009, 3:22pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:03pm) *

QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:40pm) *
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.

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: Wed 24th June 2009, 5:37am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Wed 24th June 2009, 5:42am
Post #26


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:36pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
aeon
post Wed 24th June 2009, 7:41am
Post #27


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed 23rd Jul 2008, 3:39am
Member No.: 7,214



QUOTE(Giano @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:38pm) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:03pm) *

QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 7:01pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Wed 24th June 2009, 8:09am
Post #28


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Casliber @ Wed 24th June 2009, 5:40am) *

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.

QUOTE(Casliber @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:17am) *

'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).

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:42am) *

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.

QUOTE(Casliber @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:36am) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Wed 24th June 2009, 8:55am
Post #29


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(Casliber @ Wed 24th June 2009, 5:40am) *

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. laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MBisanz
post Wed 24th June 2009, 9:03am
Post #30


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun 13th Apr 2008, 6:00am
Member No.: 5,693

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 24th June 2009, 11:30am
Post #31


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Casliber @ Wed 24th June 2009, 12:36am) *
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?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sbrown
post Wed 24th June 2009, 12:11pm
Post #32


Senior Member
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu 21st May 2009, 9:14am
Member No.: 11,840



QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 24th June 2009, 9:55am) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Wed 24th June 2009, 3:41pm
Post #33


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 4:16am) *

QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 7:05pm) *
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.


QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 7:50pm) *
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.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 24th June 2009, 5:03am) *

QUOTE(Casliber @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 11:40pm) *
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: Wed 24th June 2009, 3:51pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Wed 24th June 2009, 5:15pm
Post #34


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:11am) *

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? laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 24th June 2009, 5:52pm
Post #35


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:15pm) *

QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:11am) *

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? 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: Wed 24th June 2009, 5:55pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Wed 24th June 2009, 6:01pm
Post #36


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 24th June 2009, 1:52pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 24th June 2009, 6:15pm) *

QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 24th June 2009, 8:11am) *

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? 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!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Casliber
post Wed 24th June 2009, 6:10pm
Post #37


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri 19th Oct 2007, 10:08pm
Member No.: 3,559

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 25th June 2009, 1:41am) *

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

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Wed 24th June 2009, 6:22pm
Post #38


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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

QUOTE
[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]
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Wed 24th June 2009, 10:11pm
Post #39


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Giano @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 10:38pm) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 9:03pm) *

QUOTE(Mr. Mystery @ Tue 23rd June 2009, 7:01pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lar
post Wed 24th June 2009, 10:42pm
Post #40


"His blandness goes to 11!"
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined: Wed 26th Dec 2007, 6:04pm
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 24th June 2009, 2:01pm) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th 12 14, 10:05am