On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew > I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive > rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions > to the encyclopaedia, is worse than being up front about it". Is that succint > enough for you? I always thought of it as a potential source of useful feedback for those people most interested in editing the article and making it good. (So I see v4 as not very useful in practice because approximate no-one was providing said feedback, and hope the free comment box in v5 will actually get used, there will be a little flag on the watchlist when an article you're watching gets feedback, etc.) I somewhat see where you're coming from - there's an observable tendency to make Wikipedia less editable (hence the current en:wp community largely treating new editors as a problem to be processed, rather than as colleagues) and people who think like that will use anything they can for it. I don't think AFT is an excellent tool for this job, but we'll be able to tell it's successful when people start trying to abuse the results. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
