If editors are allowed to engage in Ill-considered accusations of impropriety and can claim wikihounding and badgering when asked to clarify further and not have to answer and stand up for their accusations. what is the point of editing here?
Small communities only hide the illusion of the politics of their bigger brothers. We are not fundamentally different from the English Wikipedia; we just pretend that we are.
There are two fundamental things wrong with Simple:
- PVGA process: percentages, etc. what The Rambling Man said a long time ago. Reform looked promising, but discussions died out.
- Lack of dispute resolution. I was naive to think that we could all work it out ourselves. We can't. There needs to be mediators, and there aren't any. When people rightfully ask others to stand up and elaborate on their accusations, they are swiftly beaten down and it is brushed off as mere "wikihounding"
The English Wikipedia may have the drama of AN/ANI, 3RR, and arbitration, but they work. They take care of many problems. They aren't perfect, but they function. Something that Simple lacks. Something that it needs. When both are in place, drop me a line.
I've thought long and hard about this for ten days, and I've slowly come to the conclusion that I no longer wish to contribute to a wiki that ignores such callousness simply because that user is not as popular. What might have stopped this? Excellent dispute resolution.
|“||I depart immediately to the spot from which hope never to remove.||”|
—Fanny Imlay, letter dated 8 October 1816
- Todd, Janet. Death and the Maidens. Berkley: Counterpoint, 2007. 229.