Peter Blaise responds: It's a philosophical thing. "Should" happens. Some of our contributions are full of "should". Don't step in the "should". The word "should" sounds so much like that other "sh..."-word that it's all I hear when someone's "shoulds" on me! I think you understand. As Albert Einstein is reported to have said, "Example isn't just another way to teach. Example is the only way to teach." -- Albert Einstein In other words, we shouldn't "should" on each other, so to speak! If we think someone else "should" do something, all we can do is set an example of how we do it, and hope they learn from our example. When was the last lecture you paid attention to? Me neither! Also, it's not really up to anyone else what is or is not a wiki. Wiki is in the eye of the beholder (just as "should" is on the shoes of the be-stepper?). Me? I see a wiki as a quick way for a community to build something, and I see both elements as, well, elemental: the community, and the something built. Others see only the community, while some others see only the something built, I guess. I can also understand that all wikis may need to be different in some essential way. I have one-page wikis, I have wikis with thousands of pages that only one person can edit, but all visitors can discuss. Each wiki seems to be the unique product of the community that built it, even a community of one. Will we ever find "the" truth about what is a wiki? Let me quote Albert Einstein again: "Measured objectively, what a man can wrest from Truth by passionate striving is utterly infinitesimal. But the striving frees us from the bonds of the self and makes us comrades of those who are the best and the greatest." -- Albert Einstein So, I guess the meta-message here is to keep on trying, just don't expect any result other than maintaining the perpetual process of trying, itself. == Peter Blaise responds: We disagree (and I do not expect to convince you to change your mind). For me, a wiki is a free and open community gathered for a purpose. I see elitists, the deletionists, and banners as anti wiki when they delete and ban anything BUT spam and vandals, that is, when they review content and pass judgment. I suggest that they improve what they read (EDIT - what a concept!), or, move on and let someone else pitch in, but stop getting in the way. I believe that even people who write pretty lame stuff may come back and clean up their own stuff - given time, and given positive examples. Regardless, biting somebody's heads of and spitting them out because we don't like what they wrote is anti wiki, in my book. Peter Blaise responds: Oops, I can never keep those trademarks clear no matter how hard I try. Of course I know there's: - the software: MediaWiki - the web site: Wikipedia - the company: Foundation I just can't remember the Foundation's name: - MediaWiki Foundation - Wikipedia Foundation - Mediapedia Foundation - Wediapicki Foundation ... ... I know they've spent thousands of dollars on trademark registrations (look at my email address - doh!) but I just can't keep 'em straight! Peter Blaise explains: To reiterate, I find that what I consider to be the elitist exclusivity, deletionist, and banning attitudes as practiced at Wikipedia.org, and at MediaWiki.org, and at whatever-the-name-of-the-Foundation-is.org, to me, are anti wiki. To me, it smells like now they want to claim glory and limelight for something other than what made them famous: customer service, wiki style, come one, come all, hey, it's a wiki, edit every page! Not.