On 12/04/11 1:10 PM, Will Beback wrote:
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Tony
Now whatever the merits of his case, this chap does have a point about
the unfriendliness of the environment. It isn't so much that we've
gone out of our way to be unfriendly, but the tool we use to
interact--the wiki, in other words--isn't really very fit for the
Wikis are _supposed_ to invite contributions, but here we seem to have
built a big maze that only frustrates people who in good faith want to
help us to make it better.
In this case, Sullivan wasn't a reader. He was a
would-be editor trying to
maintain an article about a barely notable SEO expert.
I've noticed that a lot of critics of Wikipedia began by trying to promote
some non-notable cause only to be rebuffed.
Do we get anywhere when we approach a problem with such an attitude of
Instead of trying to figure out why this happens so often, this response
merely seeks to justify the status quo. Whether somebody is notable
depends entirely on one's Point of View, yet the entire premise of the
argument is the subject's notability. How is the subject any less
notable than [[Cy Vorhees]]?