On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And curiously, the few (<5) editors who are
most aggressively attacked
for
on-Wiki actions are the ones who want the links
removed.
Try to stop blaming the people who are being attacked, and look at the
viciousness of some of the material we're dealing with. It goes way,
way beyond what anyone could call legitimate criticism.
My apologies if you took it as my blaming you for receiving what some people
perceive as retributions for any alleged on-wiki malfeasance.
My point is that you shouldn't make bad policy because <10 people insist it
will be. I know I sound like a broken record here, but no lone person nor
sub-sub group of people should have any more authority, let alone political
power, than anyone else on the encyclopedia. You and Jay seem to wield
disproportionate power relative to your tenuous positions. As this proposal
and other ducks that quack like them seem to have no broad acceptance,
nothing will come of trying to implement them than ever increasing
disruption of Wikipedia and attempts to game the system of things like RFA.
In other words, BADSITES was DOA before some tried to OWN it (along with the
Wiki/admin nomination process). As I mentioned in the other email, in
hindsight the entire thing appears to be a tool to control who gets to play
admin.
How does any of this benefit the encyclopedia?
Regards,
Joe
http://www.joeszilagyi.com