On 27/11/2007, Stephanie M. Clarkson <thespian(a)sleepingcat.com> wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ironically, this controversy has resulted in me
visiting Wikipedia
Review for the first time that I can recall, searching for a bit of
information that had been posted and then removed from Wikipedia itself.
Found it, too.
Should I be admitting this in public?
I did, in my way. I'd looked at them once or twice, and thought, 'what a
generally nasty minded group.' But I've been there more than a few times this
week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comme…
I still think they're out for blood enmasse and not reliable because of that (the
amount of gloating over Durova's downfall was disgusting), but I want information to
make decisions, and they had some of it, while Wikipedia was taking it away, despite the
fact it never needed to or should have been 'private' to begin with.
S.
Wikipedia Review's what you make it basically. All it's meant to be is
a forum for freer speech than is allowed on Wikipedia (where simply
disagreeing over a point with an admin can get you banned!) - there's
nice people and bad people, and the views of individual members are
very rarely those of everyone on the board, like Wikipedia.
Sure I personally don't agree with "gloating", but I don't think
that's really a good enough reason to delete peoples' messages and ban
them as would probably be the case with Wikipedia's more stringent
rules.
--
Selina
http://wikipediareview.com/?showuser=1
"I *do* think criticism is good for Wikipedia [...] Good quality
criticism is valuable, and Wikipedians should listen to it, and
actually make changes based on it. Are there corrupt administrators,
then we should get rid of them." --Jimmy Wales (in an email to a
Wikipedia Review member)