Ottava leaves Wikipedia Options

[Coffee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=324205438

[dogbiscuit]

I think the most memorable case we had here was AB, and I think that there was civil enough communication with Wikipedia that all sides recognised that AB was spiralling down into some mental chaos and all sides encouraged a disengagement from Wikipedia and the Review.

It is in the nature of WR that we will attract such people, and although we are not experts, common sense dictates that where it seems that an individual is in distress that basic humanity requires we attempt to act responsibly, even if we only have blunt tools to use.

Wikipedia is the same. I think, for example, that if people are found to be editing for extreme amounts of time, and I'd suggest for a voluntary site even a couple of hours a day on a regular basis suggests that there is too much enthusiasm for Teh Interweb over The Real World, (I certainly bother about the time I spend here being excessive) then a concerned site administration should be suggesting that these people should be backing off, instead they are idolised.

[Eva Destruction]

I think the most memorable case we had here was AB, and I think that there was civil enough communication with Wikipedia that all sides recognised that AB was spiralling down into some mental chaos and all sides encouraged a disengagement from Wikipedia and the Review.

It is in the nature of WR that we will attract such people, and although we are not experts, common sense dictates that where it seems that an individual is in distress that basic humanity requires we attempt to act responsibly, even if we only have blunt tools to use.

Wikipedia is the same. I think, for example, that if people are found to be editing for extreme amounts of time, and I'd suggest for a voluntary site even a couple of hours a day on a regular basis suggests that there is too much enthusiasm for Teh Interweb over The Real World, (I certainly bother about the time I spend here being excessive) then a concerned site administration should be suggesting that these people should be backing off, instead they are idolised.

I see it the opposite way in this case. Certainly, if someone were clearly mentally ill, or if an obvious child were being bullied, there's a duty of care - but Ottava's clearly an adult, and to me just looks annoyed, not nuts. While I've now lost whatever faith I had in Wikipedia as a project, I've been in the state where I could spend two-three hours a day there, and even in retrospect I don't see an issue, as long as one can and does walk away. I don't and never did subscribe to the "for the greater good" line on Wikipedia; I see it as the online equivalent of building model railroads, crocheting, or modding autos. Sure, I agree that "walk away if it isn't fun" is a healthy attitude, but different people have different ways of working - IIRC Ottava is some kind of Jesuit or similar in real life, and probably has a considerably higher tolerance to arguments than most.

(I think that was part of his problem on both WP and WR - what he sees as debating-society style close analysis, hypothetical points and displays of formal logic, look to other people like nitpicking, rambling speculation and smartassery, respectively. Jon Awbrey and Peter Damian had the same problem.)