I'm unclear how the title of this story corresponds to the content of the article. Is it a reference to the new editor's concern about the complexity of the policies & rules? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody seriously believe anymore that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"? Kansan (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"59 percent of highly prolific editors felt that social problems on wiki are important, falling to 53 percent for editors with > 1000 edits, and only 22 percent of users with fewer than 100 edits." — My take on this is that the feisty backstage Wikipedia culture is apparently not the thing causing the decline in rate of editor retention. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Possibly. I took a different read on that, tho, which was that the very-low-count (new) editors simply hadn't yet had their first experience with a Wikipedia "editorial flamewar" (as good a term as any). When that (inevitably) occurs, it either drives them off or doesn't (the retention issue) — but among those who stay, the majority come to see it as a real problem. And even among us sufficiently thick-skinned, the longer we're here, the more likely we are to be bothered by it. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been here a while and the unpleasantries do take their toll. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with FeRD and RJH Smallbones (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or one could say that no matter how thick your skin is, given enough flamewars -- editorial or otherwise -- it will get to you eventually. -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe we need a "flame retardant" barnstar? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
