QUOTE(Viridae @ Mon 17th March 2008, 12:26am) 
Well in response to this thread which has since been closed: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16655 I would just like to clarify for all and sundry what I see as my involvement with wikipedia and why.
I edit wikipedia because I like the viewer side version of the project, WP as an encyclopaedia is not the most reliable of the bunch - but for the most part in areas I tend to be interested in its pretty good. From the reader's point of view its a useful resource and a good starting point for further reading if you wish to do so. I never take its word as gospel but for the most part I am more inclined to believe it than not, unless there is something in the text that leads me to believe it might be incorrect. If the piece of knowledge i seek is important I of course back it up with other sources - some of which WP tends to provide through its referencing.
I am an admin because I think I can do some good. Whether that be keeping WP relatively free of crap, unblocking the unfairly blocked, using the (unfortunately placed) automatic respect to agitate for the same, deleting or blocking to remove the unhelpful. Adminship for the most part doesn't require much in the way of skills except perhaps reasonable DR ones because you are undoubtedly going to upset someone.
I do not agree with the leadership. The WMF is largely incompetent (see recent handling of Jimbo's claimed of impropriety) and Jimbo's involvement is waaaaaaaaay past its use by date (if ever in it TBH), his public meddling in the day to day processes of the encyclopaedia are almost invariably half baked and unresearched - as evinced by his continuing support of the old guard like JzG who get away with murder because the community has not found an effective way thus far to deal with their offences. (though that is changing as more people who are in it for fair treatment get more of a voice and more sway in the community). Jimbo support for the old guard of abusive users probobly stems from the fact that he is too lazy to actually take notice of what is happening day to day and notice how the community is being run.
My view on the way the project should be run is this - people should only be allowed to remain as long as they are a net benefit or at least not a net loss. The public don't care about the mechanisations of how what they are reading got there they only care that it is there and it is correct (and preferably well written). Users should however be given enough of a chance to demonstrate their usefulness and if viable and the will is there, those who started out on a bad foot should be given a chance to reform. Take too many bites out of the reformation apple though and you wont have any left. At that point the patience of the community has been exhausted and that editor should be considered a write-off. In the same vein an uncivil environment is not one that fosters collaborative work those that are a constant source of trouble in this manner are those the project can do without. Thus if you are a constant source of argument because of your inability to work nicely with others you are wasting the time of many more people than yourself and I don't care how good your contributions are you are are a drain on peoples time and good humour and are a net loss. Thus the reader side is the most important ethos that I follow is played out in the argument about uncivil editors that are a source of good writing.
How about the part where you run into a dispute with me here, then go start up a single purpose attack sockpuppet on WP (RTFA) and spend three hours editing my WP illegal article maliciously? Because we both know it was you.
High minded explanations indeed.