So many typos, sorry.  ack.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:09 PM, jytdog <> wrote:

> That piece is abysmally bad "science journalism" (I can't even write it
> without scare quotes, it is so bad).  To hell with it. Ignore it.
> The paper they are writing about (
>  is published in an MDPI open
> access journal; MDPI is borderline "predatory publisher".  So not the most
> 'reliable source" as we say.   I don't have much to say about it, other
> than a) that the authors would find it "surprising" that Wikipedia would
> have norms after 15 years and having achieved what we have achieved on so
> many FAs, is more of a commentary on them, than on the project; b) other
> than that and some other boners, their analysis was pretty good and matches
> my experience.
> Here is the thing I want to elevate from this:  I think that the WMF
> doesn't take into account enough when it does outreach and planning.  The
> en-wiki project is mature; it has strong norms that govern content and
> behavior.  While there is a boatload of weak article and even bad ones,
> there are a lot of very good articles that are actually difficult to
> improve; in other words, edits  made by passers-by often make the very good
> articles worse, not better.
> When I work with new users, one of the first things I explain to them is
> exactly this -- Wikipedia is a mature project, that is not at all a "Mad
> Max" world but rather we have something very close to a "rule of law" and
> very strong norms and traditions, all grounded in CONSENSUS, including
> community-wide consensus reached in the past -- the policies and
> guidelines. If they are willing to learn, lots of people are willing to
> help.  But the #1 determiner of whether people stick around or leave, if
> how open they are to learning the culture and norms.  WP is "the
> encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but editing is privilege, not a right,
> and people who make no effort to learn how things work and cause a big
> ruckus, end up leaving angry or getting blocked.    This makes sense to
> most everybody I interact with (except the ones who are on their way to
> leaving angry to getting kicked out)
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Stephen Philbrick <
>> wrote:
>> I just scanned an article: "Wikipedia is basically just another giant
>> bureaucracy",
>> and it is astonishing how bad it is.
>> I don't really quibble with the headline - it is a bureaucracy, but some
>> of
>> the content of the article is head-scratching.
>> For example, how many editors do you know who have achieved the rank of
>> super-contributor?
>> Can one take an article seriously that blunders this badly?
>> Phil
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:,
>> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to