I see the arb com ruling as providing incentive for us to arrive at
some compromise--more precisely, to try to force us to arrive at some
compromise. (the alternative is that it will be decided by who's user
behavior escalates out of control the earlier). As someone taking a
basically opposite position from Ned on the issues, I understand his
postings here and elsewhere as a sincere expression of a willingness
to try to find something that will let us return to writing and
improving articles--and I join him in this.
Of course , neither of us can reasonably expect to really like
whatever will be the resulting compromise. Once we all accept that, we
should be able to find something.
DGG
On 12/29/07, Ned Scott <ned(a)nedscott.com> wrote:
While I am hopping that it is possible to better
explain the rationale
for those who want to trim some of these articles down, I'm also
saying when we fail to do that we can't enforce the view by edit
waring or by force.
--Ned Scott
On Dec 29, 2007, at 4:19 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
You make an error that is common among
politicians. It's a belief
that
more people would find a position acceptable if only you could explain
it better. This seems to ignore the possibility that people are
rejecting the position because they feel it's wrong.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG