Commnents by NSK in the past month:
----BEGIN QUOTE
You need to ensure that all WP participants want to help WP, instead of
pushing POV or exercising power. WP's shortcomings is a problem of motives:
People join WP for their own benefit instead of WP's benefit.
If "be bold" means anarchy without organisation and process then I think
that's a bad policy that should be repealled ASAP.
Sites that claim to be serious and wish to compete with Britannica need
motivated committed editors, proof readers, maintainers, sysops and policy
makers, i.e. organisation and structure. Serious sites should not be very
friendly to the uneducated masses (i.e. disallow anon editing) and rely
mostly on a small but very effective group of well-educated volunteers who do
their work for a greater good and not just for themselves. For example,
editing of scientific articles could be limited to university students or
holders of a B.Sc. degree. However, I do recognise that it is extremely
difficult to find this kind of volunteers and maintain a huge site only by
their own work.
I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP. On
the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people
prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a cop".
Commenting on someone's voting patterns is not very democratic.
My impression was that some people prefer to participate in endless
discussions about whether a particular article is encyclopedic or not or
whether it should be deleted or moved instead of editing or improving the
actual content. But it may be just an impression.
I think there are many people here who do not actually care about building an
encyclopedia.
On Saturday 23 October 2004 21:31, Rick wrote:
VfD has the consensus support of the community.
Articles about schools
listed on VfD have, for the most part, consensus support to be deleted.
Probably because the masses enjoy destroying things. 18th century
encyclopedists didn't allow the uneducated masses to destroy the knowledge.
Let's ban people who list articles on VfD which
aren't deleted.
Nice idea.
---- END QUOTE
So, tell me again that he hasn't conducted a campaign of personal abuse.
And this doesn't even discuss his "ideas" about changing Wikipedia into a
"knowledge base" into of an encyclopedia, which he denigrates.
I'm also sick and tired of being attacked for making person attacks, when the people
on the other side who also make the personal attacks get a free ride.
RickK
Nicholas Knight <nknight(a)runawaynet.com> wrote:
Rick wrote:
Gee. Somebody who never posts on Wikipedia (as I
suspected) making
I got the impression he does edit some.
demands that Wikipedia policy be changed. And does
anybody wonder why
I saw no demands or anything remotely resembling a demand, only suggestions.
I think he's probably a troll?
Your apparent definition of "troll" is completely at odds with any I am
familiar with. NSK has merely tried to be helpful, and has been entirely
cordial.
You are being incredibly hostile for no discernable reason other than
you happen to disagree with some of the things NSK has said. Others have
also disagreed with some of the things NSK has said (I disagree with
some of them myself), but none have been rude or hostile except for you,
and there is no reason to be rude or hostile.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.