User:Ling.Nut

• I wasn't gonna leave any sort of message at all, though I know that may seem rude. I was just gonna walk away and let people read into it whatever they wanted. Then I saw a Tedy Bruschi quote, "I’d rather right the ship than jump ship." That made me feel guilty for leaving Wikipedia. But then I thought again, and on balance, leaving is the only good thing for me to do.

“ Pursuing the unicorn is more important than catching it. ”

• Two topics: FAC reviews and mentoring a certain well-known editor:

• I've pissed many people off in my FAC reviews etc., largely by getting very abrasive with respect to mediocre noms. The nominators (and others) will, of course, all get together and agree among themselves that I was not a meaningful contributor or a productive reviewer, and essentially, that I sucked. I don't blame them — it's human nature. Everyone wants to believe "I'm good; that person shouting at me is full of horse patootie." It is a purely human and natural response, and in fact it's a moderately healthy one, at least as a first response. It is healthy to avoid buying into the thought that one is worthless, or of lesser worth, because someone else is criticizing one's efforts. A more mature response, however, might then continue on into healthy and secure self-reflection: is it possible that my critic has a point? But that's asking a little too much of people for two reasons: first, because it requires a thicker skin than many folks can muster. Second, and far more importantly, because it requires that the nominator have the ability to see what's wrong with the nom. That ability is extremely rare, simply because when nominators bring articles to FAC, they bring it when it has reached the highest level of quality that the nominator's skill-level can perceive. They can't perceive any flaws. They don't have the background of experience or the knowledge base for doing so (usually, because they are between the ages of 14 and 20, and haven't spent significant time slogging their way through a large number of peer-reviewed journals etc., as postgraduate education often-but-not-always requires). So all this blah blah blah I'm spouting is just to say that I actually don't hold it against most folks if they badmouth me after I am gone. It stings a little, but it's still true that it's natural for them to do so. The "Ling was a minor contributor but legend in his own mind" meme will become conventional wisdom; hell, I frankly believe it already has, probably some time ago. It's also in the self-interest of some folks other than nominators to perpetuate (or even initiate) that meme, but I won't go there. Spare the drama.

“ Now I will speak blasphemy...Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. ”

• If I had it all to do over again, I wouldn't be such a wiki-dragon about the noms — not because I was wrong about their mediocre quality (I wasn't), but because I was wrong about the importance of maintaining high quality standards at FA. FA is extremely, extremely valuable to Wikipedia. Hell, it is invaluable. But its value is purely a social one. The FA star is held to be the greatest form of symbolic capital an article editor can receive. It is therefore a motivator. It is a unifier. It acts as an invisible hand in many powerful but unobtrusive ways (though its divisive effects are sometimes more visible). It is many more things, and all of them have a net positive effect on the structural cohesion of the Wikipedia community — but none of them are directly related to or even require the production of excellent-quality articles. Now I will speak blasphemy, and I hope everyone will forget what I say as soon as they have read it: As long as the articles are actually pretty good, they are good enough. Although it's extremely important to the fabric of Wikipedia for its content reviewers to continue insisting that FAs "should" be held to the highest standards of excellence, the fact that many are tuna fish sandwiches (comprised of light-weight research and mediocre writing) rather than filet mignon is actually hardly relevant. Uniform, across-the-board excellence is not required. The side-effects on the community resulting from the process of pursuing the unicorn are far more important than the product of genuinely catching it. Which leads to the idea that...
• The reason that excellence is not required is because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It does have a large encyclopedic component, and many articles therein have reached high quality standards. Some are even well and truly excellent. However, its intrinsic nature is as an online community — no more, no less. The function of the community (as well as the function of every community, in fact) is to perpetuate the life of the community, and FA serves very, very well as one element of that goal.
• I may sound like I'm knocking Wikipedia, but actually I'm simply demystifying it. I actually think Wikipedia is an extremely valuable online community, because it really does bring a large amount of useful information to the public at large, free of charge. It serves a useful function to the world beyond its small confines. But it is incorrect to see Wikipedia as anything other than an online community. No more. No less.

• Mentoring Mattisse

• I've mentioned two goals so far: achieving excellent quality articles, and preserving/extending the life and scope of the community. There are a few individual editors who sincerely and altruistically chase the first goal, but Wikipedia's real, fundamental, organic, overall goal is the latter. I suspect I was pursuing a third goal: helping another human being. I suppose I was also willing to put up with behavior that is unquestionably inappropriate and even harmful, as an acceptable and even inevitable cost of pursuing that long-term goal. When I say "put up with" I don't mean "erase all consequences." I was OK with the block by J.delanoy, which may have been slightly excessive, but only may have been. It was a judgment call, and I don't begrudge the judge at all... Was I wrong, however, even to pursue that goal? I dunno. Ask two people, "What's your goal in life?" If one says "Furthering my career" and another says "Helping other people", then is one right and the other wrong? Again, I dunno. It really depends on the measuring stick that you personally choose to adopt, which in turns revolves around your perceptions of what you value in life. Perhaps WP:NOTTHERAPY applies, in the narrowly defined context of Wikipedia. I can't actually say that folks like Moni were wrong — perhaps my goals were noble, but Wikipedia simply isn't the place to carry them out. But if they are willing to be objective, they can't say I was truly wrong, either. Perhaps every place is the place to carry out such goals, since people are more important than websites. I know how I've decided, and I know how conventional wisdom within Wikipedia will be shaped around the issue. I leave it to you to decide for yourself as an individual.

• Leaving is the only good thing for me to do.

• Finally, leaving is the only good thing for me to do. My reasons are purely personal. I'm not quitting because of any particular brouhaha — heavens no. As I have said elsewhere, I actually believe Wikipedia is a battleground. For an explanation of what I mean, read this. I would only add that my off-the-cuff rant focuses a little too much on admins. Some non-admins have better-developed power networks than many (maybe all) admins. It's all about networking and social capital.
• But let that be. I am leaving for purely and solely and truly personal reasons. Goodbye.