"Community" is a loaded term, because it is typically self-praisingly used by a 
relatively small number of administratively-oriented Wikipedians to describe 
themselves. It's basically WP:AN/ANI, Arbcom & associated access level seekers, 
and those who use Wikipedia as a social or socializing network. The vast 
majority of *content* editors, occasional or prolific, are completely unaware 
of this other side of Wikipedia. It's they who build the encyclopedia. I'd 
argue that where Wikipedia articles are good, it's a result of the content 
editors, not the administrative participants lauding themselves for riding herd 
on them.

Lila Tretikov has said that the proper definition of the Wikipedia "community" 
is *all* the editors, administrative participants, and readers. The 
administrative subset is not a *representative* subset of that. It's rather a 
self-selecting and much smaller subset with its own behaviors. You can see this 
recently I think, where in the current Arbcom elections, it has installed a 
filter to screen editors with less than 500 edits from asking questions of the 
candidates. I'm not aware that it has yet barred such editors from actually 
voting, but that would be the next step following its own logic. What the 
administrative component is doing is protecting its own influence and position 
by keeping these others out of the process.

Todd Allen took it a step farther below by proclaiming "community members" as 
"way more important than readers." Seems pretty brazen and non-inclusive to me, 
and illustrative of the attitudes of the administrative set.

Trillium Corsage


02.12.2015, 16:36, "Todd Allen" <email clipped>:
> That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more
> important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or
> dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the
> reason there are readers at all.
> On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  > Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's
>>  > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices,
>>  > which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts,
>>  or
>>  > otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it
>>  > makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the
>>  > inevitable butbutbut.
>>
>>  Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these
>>  issues with last month's survey.[1]
>>
>>  When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is
>>  what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a
>>  representative sample.
>>
>>  [1]
>>
>>  
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>  <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to