On 8/25/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> I hope no long-established editors who know the lay of the land are
> criticising you for this.
>
> -Matthew
> on 8/26/07 11:45 AM, K P at kpbotany(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Hell, yes, the ones called "administrators."
Always in there to
defend the socks and spammers and vandals in the face of editors who
call crap crap. Now that I think of it the same administrator who
argued for leaving a guy's comment about a girl he knew that she'd
been killed and had her body stuffed in a garbage can. I give up.
But there are plenty of other editors who can do what I did, and I
don't matter--and it's nice to have it so firmly established to me
that this is the case.
Oh, and the DG supporter who always pipes in with only nasty comments
whenever anyone gets upset about the state of Wikipedia? Don't
bother, you're so predictable one could set a clock by you.
I agree with your sentiments here, KP. To question the state of the Project
is to question the order of things; and there are those who, for their own
personal reasons, like it just the way it is.
However, as was pointed out by someone in another thread, Wikipedia is no
longer a fledgling project trying to find its place in the world. And those
who would continue to behave as though it were, will find that the old
formulas for control simply do not work anymore.
Marc Riddell