George Herbert wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Phil Nash
>> <pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:
>>
>>> ...and it's always (in my experience) a difficult
>>> dichotomy between kicking these people out of the door and
>>> culturing their behaviour so as to benefit the encyclopedia.
>>
>>
>> I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy - making a good faith
>> effort to warn and discuss and work with problematic editors is
>> almost always the best course, with banning an unfortunate less
>> desirable second choice if the situation persists for long periods
>> of time.
>>
>> Most people do respond well to good faith efforts to get them to
>> behave better...
Sorry, my experience is different; there are some editors whose behavioural
problems go on, and on, and on, yet are tolerated, because they contribute
"good content". But the overhead to others drains volunteer resources. And
when these people eventually get kicked out, they go to Wikipedia Review to
carp about injustice; sorry, but it's a classic case of "our house; our
rules", and I don't have a problem with subscribing to those rules. Those
that don't like them are perfectly free to start their own encyclopedia.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Phil Nash
>> <pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:
>>
>>> ...and it's always (in my experience) a difficult
>>> dichotomy between kicking these people out of the door and
>>> culturing their behaviour so as to benefit the encyclopedia.
>>
>>
>> I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy - making a good faith
>> effort to warn and discuss and work with problematic editors is
>> almost always the best course, with banning an unfortunate less
>> desirable second choice if the situation persists for long periods
>> of time.
>>
>> Most people do respond well to good faith efforts to get them to
>> behave better...
Sorry, my experience is different; there are some editors whose behavioural
problems go on, and on, and on, yet are tolerated, because they contribute
"good content". But the overhead to others drains volunteer resources. And
when these people eventually get kicked out, they go to Wikipedia Review to
carp about injustice; sorry, but it's a classic case of "our house; our
rules", and I don't have a problem with subscribing to those rules. Those
that don't like them are perfectly free to start their own encyclopedia.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l