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>
