From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Out of step with the times / a social network, not an encyclopedia?[edit]

What year is it here, folks, 1970?

There are very specific laws in the US that have made workplaces much more civilized since the 1970s.

The term "consciousness raising" has been used on the Gender Gap listserve. "Consciousness raising" was what people did back in the 1970s, before there was enforcement of laws on discrimination, civil rights, harassment, and sexual harassment.

Is Wikipedia really interested in becoming a serious encyclopedia?

Are we actually "working" on something here, or are we all about "being volunteers", "pretending to be volunteers when we are PR people", "building our resumes by using Wikipedia", etc.

This seems more like a social networking company than an encyclopedia, as we are prioritizing content development rather randomly, based on whatever our network of editors can manage to write or upload.

Would you really be comfortable if everybody in your life, including your female relatives, your teachers and professors, and all the people in your workplace took a look at how people interact on this site?

With $50 million/year, do we really believe the organization can't afford to have anyone but grouchy volunteers making ineffective attempts to enforce a civilized atmosphere on this site?

Today we have a news story in which Michelle Obama

"noted that some 60 million girls, including 30 million in sub-Saharan Africa, do not attend school. The first lady said that until global leaders understand that educating girls is as important as educating boys, "then we will have a lot of work to do."

Laura Bush agrees. These women are making the point that there is a lot of consensus out there about the importance of women participating in education-- consensus that clearly isn't shared by many of the participants on this website.

Pope Francis has said some rather pointed things about the Internet being a waste of time, and that even though it "offers "immense possibilities" to encounter people from different cultural and traditional backgrounds and show solidarity with them this isn't the same thing as being a Good Samaritan to people in real life.

Does anybody here even care about all the people who are left by the roadside with no Good Samaritan in sight as a result of the nasty things that get written here? About what happens to real people when volunteers can't keep up with maintenance on the BLPs?

Is anybody here thinking about the harm that is done to this organization by being verbally abusive to its participants?

We could prioritize content about public health. We could prioritize content about Africa. We could prioritize improving the articles that are used by schoolchildren, that would be helpful to people in real life. We could start asking what the growing populations in the world's refugee camps need, or find out how to create content that helps the countries struggling to raise their literacy rate. But instead, we prioritize having "whatever the volunteers happen to be interested in," even if it's mostly video games.

In a professionally run operation, managers, supervisors, meeting facilitators and moderators keep some basic order so that things can get done.

Why is the management and leadership of this organization so reluctant to set a more professional tone?