What happened in May 2007?
I remember the userbox debate and took part in it. I think some senior admin suddenly decided to take action and hundreds of people objected their favourite user boxes had disappeared. I never used a user box but the complainers were right. What was the point in banning them? There were some technical arguments about computer power, but it was rubbish (and someone worked out a fix). The main objection seemed to be the idea that users might be banding together in interest groups who might act together in a way which challenged the established authority on wiki. Suddenly instead of a friendly group of people having fun it was back in school and do as you are told. If you dont like what we do, get lost. No individuality allowed. The establishment was horrified the editors had rebelled.
wikipedia was created on the principle that a bunch of half informed people lobbing in ideas can defy entropy and create meaning out of chaos. A bunch of people in a free for all can put something together which turns out to be helpful.
I think wikipedia's reaction to criticism about its content was a mistake. Wiki has sought to become a traditional encyclopedia written by experts. There are several people who have said on this page that what wiki needs is exactly these experts and nothing else. Which completely misses the point about how the encylopedia grew and the principle that anyone can contribute. Wiki has become a bunch of reference obsessives. Funnily enough, wiki is driving the world into being reference obsessives, not the other way about. Traditional encyclopedias are not reference obsessive. They just tell you what you want to know.
I remember reading some asimov when I was a boy where he derided scholars at the galactic university for writing books based on books based on books, with never a primary source to be seen (not that I would have known the term then -see). references on wikipedia are more about settling arguments than about a search for accuracy. people lose my support when they push the concept of eternally adding references which just do not benefit content. If you want the kind of people who are pedantic, then fair enough. If you want the sort of people who wrote most of this encyclopedia, then forget this nonsense about rules.
There is room on wiki for reference obsessives, but only if they are kept in check. If they are allowed to write rules which make it impossible for the non reference obsessed to function, then the non reference obsessed will not stay here. Unless they sometimes like a fight. like me. Lots of edits by me somewhere arguing the ridiculousness of this approach. Usually works, too. Because the policy is seriosly flawed. At the very centre of the rules wiki has to acknowledge that the primary requirement for all content is originality.
The people you want here are synthesists. People who can pick up a subject, roll it about and stick together little facts into a seamless whole. people like that, and references do not matter because they will just sort it. That is how the encyclopedia happened. But no, you have to have rules so you can police it. The faction that do not believe in originality gangs up with the faction that believes wiki cannot function without strict policing. The ones who came here for fun because they enjoy stringing facts together into clever articles just get pissed off. Its a joy to do this stuff and do it well, but you guys, you just want to have all these stupid rules, and stupid little stick it notes that those who like stick it notes splat all over an article. Think theyre clever to point out a problem you knew perfectly well was there but hadnt got round to - then they buzz off and annoy someone else. Stop to fix it? oh no. Just auto delete.
I'm trying to explain. I understand the point of rules, but many who use them do not.
Today I have been looking at the Fukushima article, all day off and on. It is interesting to see how it has grown. Loads of people have been adding stuff as it happens, sentence-reference. Thats fine. A good use of references. Its chaos. the facts are unclear. something arrives and stick it in. Then some more, then try to look at the two sources and reconcile their differences. This is not a normal situation, it is reference heaven because it is a situation where they do matter. but as a busy article, most of those people are not so good at housekeeping the article. No one works on its structure. working facts into sentences. Lots of quoting 'this is how we do it so its got to be this way'. Had to split the article because you can't have a disaster mixed in with a power station article. Then put it back together. Then split it again. All the while it is the busiest topic on wiki. Well...thats how wiki works. But the nature of the argument is quote this rule, quote that rule. Not a lot of, just leave it be and see how it develops.
What am I complainign about? It is a good example of rules because there is a lot of chaos which needs containing and to an extent they impose order on it. But they do not impose a sense of turning those facts into something good. Something as helpfull as possible to those people accessing the article. The idea is to impose goodness on articles. I dont think you can. The rules would not have helped at all if those people contributing had not been keen to help.
Someone on this page complained there arent enough admins. I'm tempted to run and see if I get refused. If I did, then your question is answered. If I'm not suitable, then therese really no hope. People who enjoy being helpfull in a cooperative exercise arent going to want to be here. I would not promise to suddenly start processing masses of deletion requests. Nor masses of anything. Occasionally I might have done something as an admin and sometimes I have got involved in issues anyway, but mostly its hard work to figure out rules and procedures, and then just hard work processing paperwork. The people who are willing to do this, because they believe in the idea of the thing, you seem to be driving them into the dust. By making rules....more work to do....less fun....
About the userbox wars: it wasn't a "senior" Admin, it was simply one who had received the bit from fighting vandals & had convinced the right people she/he had a clue. (You can figure out whom I'm talking about if you read the relevant threads in WikiEN-l.) But if it hadn't been for that Admin, I'm sure one of the other Admins on the WikiEN-l list would have done the same thing.
Nevertheless, the deeper problem in the userbox wars was that it fed the growth of a deeper rift in the community: to use the same words I used above, the "clued" versus "those without a clue." But instead of doing the statesmanlike thing -- reaching out & handing out clues (so to speak) -- they were treated like clueless end users who call technical support for help but can't tell the difference between a backslash & a forward slash. As a result, a lot of respect was lost between the different cliques or groups, & some important traditions -- such as not taking Wikipedia so seriously, remembering to laugh at ourselves.
(And I'm not exempting myself from making this problem worse. Although spoke out against this attack on userboxes, I should have done more: I should have tried to work to bridge between the groups. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time or the confidence to do that. And even if I had, I still might not have made a difference.)
As a result, I believe that Wikipedia has been drifting in a direction none of us really want to go, yet don't know how to change things. But then again, browsing threads in the WikiEN-l list from late 2005 & early 2006, I found numerous emails about how things were worse at Wikipedia than they were only a few years before. How does that saying go, the one about how things change the more they remain the same?
(P.S. -- It is somewhat disorienting to read these old discussions on WikiEN-l I participated in, but have almost forgotten. Sometimes I sound wiser than I think I am now, & sometimes I wrote the most stupid things.)