3 ms·
When you consider the scale of wikipedia, it's easy to see why governance does not take the form of polite exchanges. There simply isn't time. You want a conver
by intopieces 10y ago
When you consider the scale of wikipedia, it's easy to see why governance does not take the form of polite exchanges. There simply isn't time. You want a conversation with an admin, but that admin isn't being paid to moderate, so their time is already donated. The tedium involved with politely speaking with every abuser (and OP is most certainly an abuser) would require a full time staff. That doesn't even consider the different languages such users speak.
Wikipedia is no longer a scrappy little community of people who like writing essays. It's a walled garden of information and the only way to moderate is with an iron fist.
- andrewjho 10y agoYour argument is completely logically incoherent. It amounts to saying that the status quo is circularly self-justifying because... because... just because. Have you considered, for instance, the possibility that relaxing the moderation (and -- yes -- allowing some real abusers to slip through the cracks) but dealing humanely with those who the admins can interact with would be better for Wikipedia on the whole? (Probably not.)
- intopieces 10y agoI haven't considered it because you haven't made a convincing case for me to do so. That Wikipedia has fewer volunteer editors does not in itself indicate a decline in quality. Maybe all the people that left were shitty editors. That you disagree with the way they handle enforcement of the rules you broke is not evidence of a deficient system, only that you don't like it. I have my own misgivings about wikipedia, but the post linked here doesn't mention any of them.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]