On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
You've made 5 posts in this "Exit Interview" but haven't gotten around to explaining the details of what prompted you to lose patience with Wikipedia. This is, I think, what would of most interest and use to the rest of us. We've heard the generalizations you've made so far many times before - not that they arn't valid, just that they arn't news to us.
However, the particular examples of problems you had probably *are* news to most of us on the list, so explaining them might be helpful.
Just glancing over your contrib list, you seem to be working on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Peirce and various philosophy articles, like [[Truth]] and [[Propositional calculus]]
One possible issue you (and many others) have had with dispute resolution at Wikipedia is that, as intended, they give no advantage to any side, requiring possibly endless argument, and in practice, the endless argument can be short circuited either by all but one side being blocked due to violations of norms of discussion (i.e. 3RR rule, personal attacks). Factual supperiority (i.e. citing more, or having the books on your side) is only successful if you can convince most of the people who happen to be interested in editing the page. This is very frustrating for many good researchers who come across Wikipedia. Is that the sort of issue you had?
Jesse Weinstein