On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good,
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious
attention of the powers that be in the English Wikipedia. My messages are
met either with a there he goes again attitude, or are not
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Marc Riddell
michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious
attention of the powers that be in the English Wikipedia. My messages are
met either with a there he goes again attitude, or are not
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
One does not know deteriorated discourse unless they've, you know,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marc Riddell wrote:
When will you people finally acknowledge that there is something terribly
wrong with the deteriorating level of discourse occurring in the Projects?
And this trend is certainly not confined to Wikinews. Take a good,
objective
Marc, without denying or confirming there are problems with discourse
at Wikinews (because I have no personal knowledge), I would posit that
your messages about this topic to this list have been a little...
terse. Cary was proposing some perfectly valid thoughts (and money
DOES have to do
Marc Riddell wrote:
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model.
The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up
with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an example of the problem,
2009/2/5 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious
attention of the powers that be in the English Wikipedia. My messages are
met either with a there he goes again attitude, or are not acknowledged at
all. Where does one
Philippe|Wiki wrote:
Marc, without denying or confirming there are problems with discourse
at Wikinews (because I have no personal knowledge), I would posit that
your messages about this topic to this list have been a little...
terse. Cary was proposing some perfectly valid thoughts
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
You can see the results we've had: viz, not a lot. It's not like we
can put our foot down and say play nice, now, guys and things get
better. If we could solve this problem easily, we'd have done it years
ago.
To
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8...@gmail.com wrote:
The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is
willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the
authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
A
George Herbert wrote:
That it will probably take that long is unfortunate, but large online
communities become very unwieldy in some ways. Having realism about the
community dynamics is a necessary step in engaging in them as an agent of
change.
The model for this kind of community has
Marc Riddell wrote:
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model.
The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
Michael Snow wrote:
What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up
with? I thought you were citing Wikinews as an
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
It is clear that the Wikinews Project HAS come up with a successful model.
The question is: are the other Projects even listening?
What are you suggesting is the successful model Wikinews has come up
with? I
2009/2/5 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I
had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out
the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are
persistently abusive and
George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I
had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out
the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are
persistently abusive and
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having
these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a
manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dunbar's
Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If
Perhaps it would help if we disallowed certain words in block summaries?
- Asshole
- Fuck
- Idiot...
I'm no fan of censorship, but there's no reason these words should be
in block summaries at all as far as I can think of.
skype: node.ue
2009/2/5 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
I remember one time the arbitration committee sanctioned an editor who
referred to another as an imbecile and then tried to justify it on the
basis that the other editor was obviously stupid. We've come a long way
from there. Now people rise to power and maintain it on the basis of
their
--- On Thu, 2/5/09, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews
[en] warning: contains rant
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
21 matches
Mail list logo
