User:Cool Hand Luke/Sandbox

My involvement with Wikipedia Review

I naively believed that this wouldn't be the campaign issue. I hoped that my involvement with Wikipedia Review would generate no more interest than my participating in any other off-site activity. I am aware of the controversy surrounding the site, but I thought the participation of well-regarded figures like Newyorkbrad and many other respected arbitrators (including FT2 and Thebainer) would de-stigmatize Wikipedia Review. That's why I voluntarily linked my WR account; some of our most-respected editors post there, and it is in keeping with my value of candor, transparency, and honesty in arbitrators.

WR is a very diverse place. It's true that some people there actively hope for the failure of Wikipedia. There's a sort of cultural war between those who want reform, and those who want destruction. I can tell you with a smile that the reformers are winning. Many earnest Wikipedians have shown up—people like Newyorkbrad. Many of us agree with some problems highlighted on WR, and we would like to productively discuss them. I am there to participate in this productive discussion.

I do criticize Wikipedia when our processes go awry (as with BLP failures, dragging arbitrations, and secret hearings), but I'm also there to defend Wikipedians when I feel they are unfairly maligned.[1][2][3][4] I try to correct urban legends.[5][6] I tend to oppose idle slander, as I've already recounted.

I often disagree with the management. I'm not fond of WR's owner, and I don't appreciate how the mods and admins capriciously allow speculative and potentially damaging threads to fester in plain sight. That said, I'm certain that it would be worse without the participation of users like Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, Alison, Sarcasticidealist, and many others—including many who are anonymous (like I was until recently). I hear that there is an effort to make a new site, maybe like the Wikback with more transparent management. I would move to such a site if it allowed the vigorous debate between Wikipedians—current, former, and new members. In fact, I was quite active in the original WikBack, which courageously allowed even banned Wikipedians. The debate and analysis on Wikipedia Review is valuable (like some say, it's a meta-watchlist).

I was raised religiously. An expression I often heard from ecclesiastical leaders is that we should "be in the world, but not of the world." That is, we should not live a close-minded and cloistered existence. We should live and travel in the world, but we should not ourselves become worldly. "Even Jesus," they might say, "lived among robbers and prostitutes."

I'm not as religious anymore, but I try to live by that credo: there's good reason for it. People are hurt out in the world, and we should strive to help them—whether they are living people defamed here, or editors attacked on WR. Whatever you might believe about people like User:Alison, I know that she strives to help attacked people all over the internet, including people with whom she doesn't personally get along, and even on sites I dare not travel. Moreover, the world is a cacophonous marketplace—we can learn from it. At the moment, WR is the only site where Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians alike have a sustained conversation about this site.