Jump to content

User talk:Ikip: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Ikip (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Cool Hand Luke (talk | contribs)
Thanks: new section
Line 4: Line 4:


__TOC__
__TOC__

== Thanks ==

We often forget (and I sometimes do) that this is an all-volunteer project. Nobody is paid, and few people have any personal stakes in contributing. When volunteers feel insulted and unappreciated, they quit. Without volunteers, we have no project.

Incidentally, I really did like your evidence section. I wouldn't read into a collapsible subheading if it wasn't concise and logically laid-out. One of the best-organized sections I've seen on any case. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:11, 17 August 2009

"Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Source: "Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225)

This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." -- User:Cool Hand Luke [2]

The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them. -- User:Jehochman[3]

A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven. --Durova

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report

...as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Best welcome template: User:AxG/WikiWelcome1

wikipediareview: History of wikipedia

Thanks

We often forget (and I sometimes do) that this is an all-volunteer project. Nobody is paid, and few people have any personal stakes in contributing. When volunteers feel insulted and unappreciated, they quit. Without volunteers, we have no project.

Incidentally, I really did like your evidence section. I wouldn't read into a collapsible subheading if it wasn't concise and logically laid-out. One of the best-organized sections I've seen on any case. Cool Hand Luke 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]