Cheney Shill wrote:
Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I still think you've entirely missed the point of what I mean by
"social interaction." Wikipedia works because people come together,
Then don't use "social interaction". How about some words that generally
encapsulate whatever it is your point is? After reading the current reply, I didn't
see any other point.
To me it's clear that "social interaction" does "generally
his point, which was very well phrased.
Wikipedia works because people come together
contribute information, edit information, squabble over it, have
little arguments, e-mail each other, organize list serves, organize
chats, use elaborate guidelines and rule structures to get what they
Again, that's why you think it works. Repeating this over and over isn't the same
as verifiability. I think you're mistaking the means with the end. We've been
over this. Source it. I'm not interested in socializing about it.
Scholarly opposing points of view will engage in verifiability wars.
Social interaction is indeed a means for approaching an end that is only
rarely reached, if it exists at all.
All of this would fall under "social
interaction" in the standard
So your point is "social interaction". Start a new email thread with that
subject and enjoy. You won't have to "exhaust" yourself for my social
development because I won't be socially interacting with it. This email subject is
very clearly about applying existing policy and how consensus obstructs and interferes
with doing so. I do appreciate you providing an interactive case study.~~~~Pro-Lick
While I find social interaction to be an inteeesting process, I don't
gove a damn about your social development. When we lament that
"consensus obstructs and interferes" with the application of policy we
have clearly lost our ability to apply common sense. It suggests that
policy should prevail no matter how ridiculous the results.