User:Jim Carter - Public/Sandbox

From Public account

To keep a record:

From original account

Why should I or anyone else contribute here and be a part of this community ?

I request everyone, my talk page watchers, passer-by's, and whoever you are, to take a minute and read what I have to say. I don't know why I'm writing this, but I just wanted to ask everyone why should I or anyone else contribute here and be a part of this community ? Editing the encyclopedia by creating and improving articles is a good thing, but the negative atmosphere, fighting, insulting, grudges, hostility, ranting, abuse and many other things like that happen here frequently which eventually drives away the good faith editors. Why does this happen and why can't we all do something about it ? More importantly, in this type of scenario do you think anyone could contribute here without being affected by it ? When I joined Wikipedia, I did so with high hopes of improving it in any way I possibly could and be happy and proud about it. Over the past three years since I've been a member here, I've seen many editors and administrators leave Wikipedia of which many of them never came back. Therefore I want to ask everyone, why should I continue to edit/contribute here and be a part of this project and community ? What makes you happy while editing and being here ? Please feel free to share your thoughts and opinions on this matter, and also if you could share any type of experiences you may have had since you've been editing here. Thank you.

Hi, I was on Huggle and saw this.... Why? Yes it can be frustrating, very frustrating.... but also it can feel good to know you've made a positive impact. However, this is balancing act and when the negative side becomes greater than the positive side you have to make a change. Some take a break, some just leave, some turn to edits that cause less friction. I've just come back after 3 months break because of wiki stress. In the end you have to do what make you happiest. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I find most of this discussion fairly ridiculous. It is framed as though there are daily occurrences of bad admins having to be desysopped. Meanwhile, there aren't enough admins to do huge chunks of things, we have only a tiny, tiny handful who work on arbcom enforcement (which has now essentially become an echo chamber, as it's the same admins on AE who are also doing the same work on managing the same contentious articles...), it's almost impossible to get anyone to help on sockpuppet investigations, and not even editors are bothering to comment on deletion discussions anymore. If I had started editing Wikipedia a year ago, there is no way I would ever put myself through RFA. Liz is right not to do it, and I will not and do not encourage any editors to do it anymore. There's been lots of self-congratulations on this page about how much "nicer" RFA has become. It's only "nicer" because nobody who has so much as a single black mark runs anymore. Only bulletproof people run. And there aren't many of them.

The fact that editors can make intentional attacks and then play it off like they had no idea it would or could be offensive, even denying the history of the attack, is one of the major contributions to the failure of the civility policy. It has created an expressway out of the civility policy: say your attack, deny it's background, and good faith will protect you.