Wikipedia talk:Lost functionalities
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And yet, the cup is still half full. (Radiant) 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I. Love. This. Page. (end Steve Ballmer mimic) Though some things are probably imminent in a growing collaborative environment (loss of SQL access), much of what you describe are IMHO very real issues. Your page is a good instruction for the aspiring editor.... Q: When you mention hair-trigger anti-vandalism efforts, are you referring to the 'Bots, or the dilettantes like me who just watch and pounce when we can (sometimes armed with knowledge or experience)? TIA. — David Spalding Talk/Contribs 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice page. I particularly like:
"The idea of a wiki is that you keep and improve articles over time. However, these days people on wikipedia expect good articles to spring into being fully formed... while at the same time banning anon users (our main contributors) from making new articles. Asking people to write articles or make major changes in their userspace is not the answer, because that negates all the advantages of having a wiki in the first place."
I recently had to defend an article on AfD that someone had tagged for speedy deletion 26 seconds after it was created. Wikipedia would not have imploded if the article had been left to 'mature' for a week, or even a bit longer. Where should the line be drawn? A week, a month, a year's worth of small edits every week? Carcharoth 13:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
All true, sadly true. Abeg92contribs 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary section break
Nice page. Very interesting. But it occurs to me that attempts to counter abuse led to the loss in almost every case. That's surely significant. Not sure there's a good solution, though. The tragedy of the commons comes to mind. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] link to otoh
Heh ... clever. dr.ef.tymac 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My view
I find much of this true as Wikipedia had a more informal character that was gradually lost.
However: "It used to be possible for any small-scale Wikipedia issue - article content disputes, user conduct issues, policy arguments, etc. - to be sorted out simply by some level-headed user going down to the area of dispute, and cooling it down. Blocks were considered a "last resort", and discussion was used before they were put into effect." - I am not sure if this does not happen as often as it used to, but from my understanding it can still happen as long as both sides calm down because of the intervention - However if it gets out of control to a certain point there will be blocks. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
