https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
--- Comment #57 from [email protected] 2011-09-14 16:11:43 UTC --- (In reply to comment #51) > (In reply to comment #45) > > On what data are you basing this opinion? The specific way that new editors > > will respond to various interface changes is an extremely chaotic > > phenomenon, > > and it would be naive to believe that anyone could accurately predict the > > result of this change without any experimental data. > > Right, but restriction of article creation is not an interface change, it's a > process/community/culture change whose effects can be predicted quite easily. > > > Why is the WMF so > > resistant to implementing a brief trial so that we can base our opinions on > > facts rather than gut reactions? Even if we implemented the trial for a > > shorter period of time than 6 months, at least we would have some real > > information on which to base these important decisions. > > I disagree: such a trial could have permanent effects despite the fast > turnover > of new editors, in particular because this change would necessarily produce > several deep process changes which could be difficult to revert (and anyway > would be a waste of time). > Look, for instance, at the effects of a small change such as the mandatory > summary for IP edits introduced by de.wiki in 2007: steep decrease of > anonymous > edits, which never reached the previous level although the change was rapidly > reverted (and yes, you can blame thousands other causes, but that's valid for > every trial). > > > In closing, the WMF seems very concerned about how new editors are treated. > > Perhaps they should also consider how they treat their experienced editors > > who > > have volunteered for years. I fully realize now the extent to which the > > wool > > has been pulled over my eyes; it makes me look differently upon the hours > > I've > > spent volunteering my time here, and there isn't much else that's a stronger > > disincentive to continue contributing. > > I sympathize with you, but it's not WMF's fault if the time you spent on this > discussion doesn't produce an immediate result: the point is that there is no > clear consensus, as it happens frequently in our discussions; it's frustrating > but it's always been like this. > > > I wish you good luck in your attempts to solve the problem by other means. > > I > > hope for everyone's sake that the WMF knows better than the 500 experienced > > editors who supported this trial. > > > > I don't plan on contributing to this discussion any further (unless there > > is a > > sudden change of heart), but other en-wiki editors may wish to continue > > discussing this with you. > > As I said above, I don't think that "500 editors vs. WMF" is a fair > characterization of what's happening here. You might also want to consider > that > en.wiki is one wiki among 700+ and 270 Wikipedias: first, you should consider > the experiences of other wikis and we could discover that keeping restricting > new editors permissions hasn't helped; second, I don't think that the global > community and the WMF can allow projects which are all called "Wikipedia" to > be > completely different with regard to openness and basic principles/workings – > it's already strange enough that en.wiki is the only wiki with article > creation > restricted to registered users (ok, there are also id, fa, ta.wiki and > es.books). There is nothing strange about it - no other Wiki has to contend with the huge daily influx of *totally* unacceptable new pages. This is probably not easy for anyone to understand who has not spent 100s of hours patrolling new pages and patrolling the people who are supposed to be patrolling them, and then physically deleting them or indeed removing incorrect CSD templates. One needs to consider that one or even five WMF voices are not even five of the 500 who took part in the RfC and led it to a clear consensus on a solution for an urgent and serious problem. The WMF voices are even less significant among the tens of thousands of other editors who actually do the work of maintaining quality and who provide content. The en.Wiki is more than just a usa.Wiki, it addresses the entire English speaking world of billions and cannot be compared with the minor Wikis - not even with the French and German ones whose languages are shared by several nations. Ironically, in other ares of major policy, some of those other Wikis are significantly stricter than en.Wiki, but I don't see the WMF interfering with them. By not accepting necessary change, there is likely to be an exodus of the very experienced editors that are needed - the WMF needs to decide who is more important: the gnomes in the background who with their thousands of monthly n intelligent edits put the project where it is today, an keep it ticking over, or the vandals, spammers, attackers. and BLP SPAs - none of whom are likely to become seriously minded contributors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
