User talk:Severa: Difference between revisions
Fix date in archive box. Copyedit. |
Well, there you have it. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<table><tr><td width="70%"> |
|||
{{Retired}} |
{{Retired}} |
||
| ⚫ | '' |
||
</td><td> |
|||
{| class="infobox" width="230px" align="right" |
{| class="infobox" width="230px" align="right" |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| Line 32: | Line 28: | ||
</small> |
</small> |
||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
||
==Enough is enough== |
|||
</tr></td></table> |
|||
This has become far too frustrating for me and I get nothing in return for all the time and energy that I invest. The greatest reward one can expect in doing something for free is that they will have a lasting, positive effect. On Wikipedia, there is no such consolation, as it is certain that someone will systematically undo everything I've ever done at some point. It's the reason why half the articles that are Featured now won't be Featured in a year. It's laboriously difficult for multiple users to come together and organize a project to improve an article. All it takes to destroy that is one determined user who will repeatedly revert something until other users are too exhausted to resist and they have gotten their way. For them to successfully carry out such a campaign across several articles, all it takes is a blocking policy which won't put its foot down for fear it might step on someone's toes, and a system which hands out second chances as if a person could realistically be given more than one. The end result is that we shelter people who do not have Wikipedia's interests at heart, enabling them to continue the edit-warring, POV-pushing, and harrassment which drives productive editors to their wit's end. I'm sick of trying to work within a system that demands I provide evidence that someone has committed a wrongdoing ''and'' justify why that wrongdoing warrants taking some kind of preventative action. It should be self-evident when someone is doing a disservice to Wikipedia and that should be regarded as justification in and of itself. |
|||
| ⚫ | In short, they win. I'm not standing between articles and those with an agenda any longer. I've tried to play mediator for over two years, to find the middle ground between conflicting interests, but the only result is that I've been hit both back and front and taken twice the emotional toll. -<font color="006400">S</font><font color="696969">e</font><font color="006400">v</font><font color="696969">e</font><font color="006400">r</font><font color="696969">a</font> (<small>[[User talk:Severa|!!!]]</small>) 14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 14:32, 22 December 2007
Enough is enough
This has become far too frustrating for me and I get nothing in return for all the time and energy that I invest. The greatest reward one can expect in doing something for free is that they will have a lasting, positive effect. On Wikipedia, there is no such consolation, as it is certain that someone will systematically undo everything I've ever done at some point. It's the reason why half the articles that are Featured now won't be Featured in a year. It's laboriously difficult for multiple users to come together and organize a project to improve an article. All it takes to destroy that is one determined user who will repeatedly revert something until other users are too exhausted to resist and they have gotten their way. For them to successfully carry out such a campaign across several articles, all it takes is a blocking policy which won't put its foot down for fear it might step on someone's toes, and a system which hands out second chances as if a person could realistically be given more than one. The end result is that we shelter people who do not have Wikipedia's interests at heart, enabling them to continue the edit-warring, POV-pushing, and harrassment which drives productive editors to their wit's end. I'm sick of trying to work within a system that demands I provide evidence that someone has committed a wrongdoing and justify why that wrongdoing warrants taking some kind of preventative action. It should be self-evident when someone is doing a disservice to Wikipedia and that should be regarded as justification in and of itself.
In short, they win. I'm not standing between articles and those with an agenda any longer. I've tried to play mediator for over two years, to find the middle ground between conflicting interests, but the only result is that I've been hit both back and front and taken twice the emotional toll. -Severa (!!!) 14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)