> At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote: >> On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty >>> years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years >>> specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years). So >>> my comments get long. If that's a problem for you, don't read it. >> >> >> ... Has it really not occurred to you that *you're* trying to convince >> *us* of something? In which case, conciseness is likely more useful >> than defiant logorrhea ... Oh, never mind.
on 5/31/10 6:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax at [email protected] wrote: > > It's occurred to me that you'd think that and claim it. I'm not > writing for you, David. I'm writing for certain others who want to > read this, and there may still be some left. If I considered it worth > my time to write polemic, i.e, the "useful conciseness" that you seem > to want, I'd do it. I know how to do it. It simply takes about three > times as much time to cover the same topic in a third of the length. > And I don't have that time. I really don't have the time to write this.... > > Or to say it more clearly, even: > > I don't think convincing you is a worthwhile use of my time. > > You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading. You > were not personally the cause of Wikipedia's problems, though you > typify certain positions that are part of the problem itself. Those > positions are effectively created by the structure, or the lack of it. > > You could possibly be a part of the solution, but you'd have to > drastically review and revise your own position, coming to understand > why it is that power is slipping from your grasp or the project is > becoming increasingly frustrating. > > No, I'm writing to this entire list, even if it seems I responding to > a single post. I know there are some here who get what I'm saying, > and they are the ones I care about. It's even possible that I'm > writing for someone who will read this after I'm dead. I'm old > enough, after all, to see that as coming soon, and I have cancer. > Slow, to be sure, and I'm more likely to die from something else, > but.... it makes me conscious of my mortality. Do you really think I > care about what you think? > > I know myself pretty well, and I'm definitely not trying to convince > you, I'm not in a relationship with you and I'm demanding nothing of > you, not even that you read this. I just write what I see, it's what > I've always done, and there have always been people who very much > didn't like it. And others who very much like it. I don't normally > write to this list, but I saw that some were really trying to grapple > with the problems, so I made some comments reflecting my experience > and ideas. They have always been unwelcome, largely, from those whose > positions are untenable when examined closely. > > There have been others like me, in some way or other, who did this on > Wikipedia. If they were unable to restrain themselves, or didn't care > to, they've been blocked or banned. Wikipedia doesn't like criticism, > but the *large* consensus is that it's necessary. Unfortunatley, the > large consensus almost never is aroused, it takes something big to > get their attention. > > To summarize a recent incident: > > You can take away our academic freedom, we don't really care that > much about it, and those were troublesome editors anyway, but take > away our pornography, you're in trouble! > > Same issue, really. But the meta RfC on removal of Jimbo's founder > flag, based on his action at Wikiversity, was stagnating at about 2:1 > against it until the flap at Commons, when editors started pouring > in, and it's currently at about 4:1 for removal, last time I looked, > with huge participation. > > And Jimbo resigned the intrusive tools (block and article delete) > that he'd used. In spite of his prior threat that effectively said > "I'm in charge." Don't assume my position on this! I commented, > though. I commented on the problem at Wikiversity in a few places, > and got a confirming email from Jimbo as to what I'd said about it, > and certainly no flak from him. I neither oppose consensus, nor the > needs of administrators and managers of the project. I'm trying to > assist, but, I know to expect this from long experience, there are > always people who don't want such assistance, because it serves them > that things are the way they are. If anyone actually wants > assistance, write me privately. I do know pretty much what could be > done. But I certainly can't do it alone! and I wouldn't even try, > other than putting a toe in the water and tossing a little yoghurt in > the lake to see if it's ready to take. > > you never know. Abd, Bravo! And thank you for your honesty - and your perception. Marc Riddell _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
