User:Jdorney/Short Essay on Rules

I originally came to Wikipedia in 2005 and at that time thought it was the greatest project I'd ever come across. Here was a place you could contribute all the knowledge you had, with just a click of a button. Not only that, but you could share it it (and benefit from the judgment of), a worldwide web community. WP has its problems but I still think the good outweighs the bad.

In the last year or so, however, I've become very disillusioned with the loss of good faith and general manners on WP at the expense of interminable rules and POV warriors. It used to be that people could discuss things rationally and disagree but come to a workable compromise based on mutual goodwill.

But starting in around 2008 I started to find people just shouting 'rules' at me. It didn't matter what was a better edit, it just mattered who could play the system better. I was never blocked in four years of editing but have been blocked twice in the past year, both times at the request of another user (yes the same one). And both times not for the content of my editing, but because I had broken, "procedure". This is not what I signed up for. I've been sorely tempted to give up on WP altogether.

I've come to realise, however, that giving up is not the solution. We can still make this work. What I'm calling for is less systematic procedural "rules" that can be manipulated and more monitoring of the spirit of WP - ie good faith, compromise and factual, neutral editing. People who violate the spirit of the rules, by all means sanction. People who are acting in good faith, however, should not be threatened with blocking because they've violated procedure regardless of the content they are contributing.

Anyhow, I'm still here.