On 2/4/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry, but for what I would hope are obvious reasons I think we should discourage people from playing out their paramilitary fantasies at Wikipedia.
You keep calling the CVU a paramilitary. What, other than the name, implies it's a military body? There are no directors, no ranking members, no nothing. Just because it has a fancy name does not make it a military fantasyland.
All this time I've only been complaining about the name. Well, and essjay's defensiveness worries me a little, but then, I have taken a strident tone here.
In the above, although you cropped it out, I was responding to Geni's position that if playing out paramilitary fantasies on Wikipedia is part of the attraction of CVU, then that's okay.
I don't think that's okay.
Here-- let me start over in a nice tone:
"Although I don't know how the people who are labeling themselves the Counter Vandalism Unit do their work, I trust that they are working only out of a desire to improve Wikipedia. However, I do take issue with the chosen name for the project, which has unfortunate paramilitary overtones. I hope people will consider a more value neutral name for the project."