Wikipedia:Esperanza: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
attempt a compromise
Elaragirl (talk | contribs)
Well, let's get all of the truth out without whitewashing OR being catty.
Line 35:
* '''Stressbusters''', which investigated the source of wikistress.
 
Some of these programs survive as independent projects, but most were deemed by the community as actually detrimental to the mission of Wikipedia.
 
Aside from participating in the group's official programs, members of Esperanza were also encouraged to show support to other editors through such methods as awarding barnstars for good work and supporting other editors with kind words during hard times.
Line 41:
Esperanza was governed by a charter, which stipulated an Advisory Council with staggered terms, as well as an Administrator General who was selected by the council to lead the project. Amendments to the charter could be made through week-long discussions held on [[Wikipedia talk:Esperanza]]. This was criticized as being heavily bureaucratic; Wikipedia is [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy|not a bureaucracy]].
 
Esperanza was first [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1|nominated for deletion]] in November 2006. Critics of the group argued that Esperanza distracted people from contributing to the encyclopedia proper by providing an environment for social interaction. Esperanza was also criticized for having regular Council elections, which were seen as nothing more than popularity contests. Following a no consensus result in the first motion to delete Esperanza, the organization engaged in a series of reforms, which resulted in the deletion of the coffee lounge, the user page awards, Stressbusters and the Barnstar Brigade. The group also attempted to promote participation in the article namespace by creating an Esperanza Collaboration of the Month. While most of the reform discussions ultimately reached a consensus, the consensus was ultimately to basically change nothing that the critics of Esperanza found wrong with it, and only to remove those aspects of the organization that were going to be deleted anyway. In addition, the overhaul discussions related to Esperanza's goals, its charter, its governance, what constitutes membership, and the noticeboard -- the elements most criticized -- weren't completed.
 
A month later, Esperanza was once again [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza|nominated for deletion]] because the organization's members failed to reform Esperanza and excluded non-members from participating in Esperanza activities and discussions. The nomination noted Esperanza as "a nice idea but impossible to implement".
 
After long discussion, in which it was noted that despite being a large project, isnthat Esperanza had failed it'ts neededmission to spread hope and good cheer, itand that an organization to do such was unnecessary in any case. It was ultimately decided that Esperanza was to be decentralized and disbanded; see above for a list of now-independent projects. Other pages about Esperanza themselves were redirected to this page, which was replaced with the summary above.
 
More debates followed on various pages in the Wikipedia namespace, including on a [[WP:DRV/EA|deletion review]] filed to review aspects of the MfD closure. The closing admin declared the consensus to be that the original MfD decision was endorsed.