On 31 January 2011 17:49, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are > proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and everyone > else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of the > committee to do so.
The problem is that the other two-thirds of Wikimedia are having their reputation adversely affected by en:wp's reputation. e.g. Tim Starling feels there's no point working on technical measures to attract newbies until en:wp's terrible newbie-biting is fixed: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-December/050843.html e.g. on the internal list, when I pushed WYSIWYG, the *first* reaction (from a board member) was "that's pointless to think about when people are treated so badly on en:wp." Crossing the streams of project autonomy would be bad, but a good way to leave others feeling they need to is to make excuses to avoid solving the problem in question. So you may want to not do that. > The so-called "civility issue" is only one thing that turns off female > participants. Another is the need to master significant amounts of technical > information before being able to edit. As noted above, even the paid employees amongst the techies want the civility problem fixed before they'll work on that. I believe that puts the ball back in your court. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
