In a message dated 8/31/2009 11:47:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com writes:
> - WikiTrust might be described as "a way to see how long an edit
> endured
> and how much trust it seems to have"; in most users' hands it'll be
> "its
> colored red/blue so its right/wrong."
> - People won't think, they'll assume and rely.>>
-------------------
Interesting to see this by virtue of repetition in our mirrors.
And our pseudo-mirrors who *don't* event state that they mirrored us.
Then after a phrase has been cut from our version due to lack of source,
it's put back in citing a past mirror who hasn't removed it....
Circular.
Unsourced statement one has "high trust" because it's been there for two
years, without a source. When a source is found contradicting it, will there
be a big fight because "100 editors has passed on this and haven't reverted
it!"
.... Shades of past warfare.
Will Johnson