Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-1409530-20170725084635/@comment-1409530-20170727125552

Archer of Az-Zure wrote: Honestly Jdogno7, having a different opinion is fine, however wikis are communities and thus it is up to the majority, I'll leave it in the hands of the admins now. Knowing your history Jdogno7, you should honestly think very hard about what makes an effective and beneficial contributor. Here is an excerpt from a wiki community article on what makes a successful wiki. You should probably have a good hard look at this in regards to your editing.

"On a small community, each individual is important. The top contrinutors on a small community are probably the administrators. They're the people who understand the structure. They're the institutional memory. They're the people who mentor new contributors, and help to referee disputes. If you lose an active contributor on a small community, there isn't necessarily anybody there to take that person's place. If you lose two or three of the most active contributors, then your community is in big trouble.

The flip side of that coin is that an individual can also do a lot of damage to a small community. One vandal, or one babbling kid, can't do much to harm Wikipedia -- the database is too big, and there are plenty of folks who enjoy finding and reverting nonsense. On a small community, there aren't as many people around to clean up the mess. If there’s no one around to clean it up, the community could lose contributors.

Therefore, you need to pay attention to each individual on a small community. Each contributor needs encouragement, mentoring, and appreciation. You also need to set boundaries that make the productive contributors feel safe and happy."



"Knowing your history Jdogno7, you should honestly think very hard about what makes an effective and beneficial contributor.": Are you saying that I am deliberately making detrimental edits?