Jonathan + Adrian -- thank you for the thoughtful ideas.  Seconding that:
~ We could use warmer, less confusing ways to handle edit conflicts,
deletion, and edit wars
~ We have the luxury of trying many approaches in different places, and
iterating

Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier place?...

There is no such place... Have you been to a city?


Yes. Some disarmingly well-designed and welcoming, despite their density.
The question is not whether better equilibria exist; they do.  It is why
they are often hard to recognize, try out, and adopt.  Your insistence that
'there is no such place' is quite extraordinary, really: and highlights the
challenge.

Todd Allen writes:
> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic.

<laugh>  Smooth redefinition of terms.  Jonathan's proposal was so kind +
specific, and you're spoiling for a fight.
Most of us have an opinion on inclu/delight, and would be glad to debate
it, but this thread isn't the place.

Pierre-Selim:
> can people participating to this thread respect the soft limit of this
mailing list, i.e. this is not a chat

Thanks for the reminder.  More than one post per day in a thread is
probably too much...
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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