|
|
|
|
|
|
by starkparker
841 days ago
|
|
|
> 2. Sites that try to "keep the db clean" by nuking stuff they think is "bad" by some criteria. The problem on Wikipedia is less about having standards and more about having changing interpretations of fundamental standards re-classify large swaths of previously acceptable content as unacceptable. The trend away from subject-specific notability and sourcing guidelines to applying one notability guideline generically to every subject, regardless of the intent in doing so, mostly just gives editors who like to delete things a whole new buffet of articles to tear through. |
|
|
For me as an amateur contributor, though, even the normal experience was tough - suddenly I returned to find my content removed, with a short, aggressive note, left by what wasn't a committee, or a jury, but rather a single, annoyed and tired individual, who in his seniority was somehow justified in unilaterally acting alone to delete my work, without the careful attention to detail in documents, wording, and formality which helps make real-world justice palatable. The carelessness with which he wrote made it clear that at that site, I was to be considered a person of very little value at all.
To speak more clearly, that was the social/psychological effect of it - which left me without much motivation to continue! And I think that's a wide effect - if you compare a typical 1st-time wikipedia editing experience to the more successful UGC sites, it's pretty clear they all make some effort to shield users from that (if they can) and let them feel successful, even if they aren't yet. (I know from the inside of one of these places that users get mad at for removing their creations for copyright or other reasons, all of us on the inside hated potentially frustrating a creator, and admired them for trying over and over to create something.)
Moreover, from what I've heard, there used to be more freedom on wikipedia, so the argument that "it's always been that way" might not even work.