That's a good point: the activity of proofreading is inherently less likely to cause controversy than the activity of building a neutral, comprehensive encyclopedia, so it's probably naturally likely to attract people who are less inclined to argue, and the topics are also likely to be easier to resolve. I never thought about it that way.
David Richfield +27718539985 Sent from a mobile device. On 25 Apr 2013 21:50, "Andrea Zanni" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David, > thanks for sharing. > > I tend to agree to some of the statements made in the thread: > as a Wikisource user, I perfectly understand the lack of negativity > proofreading carries, > instead of, for example, writing on Gaza strip related topics... > (and I would dare to say (without data, unfortunately) that this is also a > reason why in WS and DP we could find a high percentage of women as > collaborators, too.) > > Moreover, I think it's right to think is people who love *books* who goes > towards DP and Wikisource, > and also people who loves old books (because we don't have new ones). > > Aubrey > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
