> the changes are reverted and they make a blog post or run to the media about how unfair Wikipedia is I think this was a cautionary tale for educators conside

> the changes are reverted and they make a blog post or run to the media about how unfair Wikipedia is I think this was a cautionary tale for educators considering similar projects. If you tried to learn how to surf and almost drowned three times before you got your feet back to solid ground, I think you'd be cautioning other people as well. > Frankly, this seems like a perfect teaching tool - you've got someone right there willing to do the teaching for you, because they're engaging your student in a debate about the content of the material. If the goal is to learn about Wikipedia administrivia, then yes, it's a perfect teaching tool (the virologist Mahlke doesn't seem terribly interested in teaching epidemiology with statements like "see, the thing is..."). I will even grant you, there's a fair chance that being able to incorporate most Wikipedia administrivia into your online behavior is probably a good test whether or not a person is really able to act like an adult. That said, without realizing the primacy of the bureaucracy at the outset, I think most people agree first contact with the Wikipedia bureaucracy is generally a horrible experience. It's rather similar to learning to surf: most people give up before they try, and most who do try give up after the first attempt. The be bold policy should now be "be bold, and time your edits. In the 1 in 20 chance they are contested, expect at least 10 times as much time will be spent in the bureaucracy. Once administrative action is taken, skim the key policies and guidelines (1) before saying anything. Expressing indignation will only make things worse." (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia_policies_an...