I have not been impressed with the intelligence, or indeed the integrity, of most Wikipedians. Bad behaviour is discouraged, and blocks issued to protect the project(s), stupidity is surely a bad behaviour to be discouraged.
Stupidity should be viewed the same as disruptive editing or vandalism. With editors subject to the same sanctions if they do not behave more intelligently.
This is judged in exactly the same way as other bad behaviour is judged - it is a matter of opinion.
I'm fed up trying to explain the simplest things to the simplest of people, backed up by corrupt admins. Check out the idiocy contained in the lead of the English Wikipedia en:Solar System article. There is simply no reasoning with some people.
- As possibly one of the longest serving admins on WP (soon to be an ex-admin as I have recently tendered my resignation in disgust at what Wikipedia has become internally, an abusive and hostile community), can I just say that not all admins are corrupt. There are, and always have been, good ones and bad ones. The ratios however do appear recently to have become sadly disproportionate, and the allegedly non-existent cabal now seems to have the upper hand, and the probability is that good admins will struggle and bad ones will flourish in the current environment, which is one of policy driven content, and not one of content driven policy. Wikipedia is in this respect like a cart dragging the horse and not vice versa as it should be. Do not expect things to get better unless root and branch surgery is performed by the various Strategy task forces to redress and reverse this imbalance. Personally speaking, it will be a very cold day in hell before you find me back working in en.Wikipedia. Sjc 09:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a thought about this proposal? A suggestion? Discuss this proposal by going to Proposal talk:Intelligent Editors.
Want to work on this proposal?
- .. Sign your name here!