Well, except for the fact all the trolls etc. that cry
the second you delete something that is *not* benefiting Wikipedia.
Trolls are easy to spot and deal with. And they aren't the ones that are
stirring up the drama. It's the well-intentioned good-faith editors that
are doing that.
Actually, it's not very hard to keep a forum
civil. Set up proper
rules, delete posts that contravene them, and ban repeat offenders.
Try performing that when the higher-up overrules you whenever she feels
like it. Selina was set up as root admin, and because of that, it was
*hell* to keep a lid on anything.
It's like panning a thousand tons of ore by hand
to find one speck of gold.
That's a considerable exaggeration.
Here's another hypothetical question; if WR were
posting what it
thought was the real name of a Wikipedia editor, and further asserting
that that person was a CIA spy, mentally unbalanced, and various other
similar claims, would you consider that "defamatory"? Or do WR posters
have a unique definition of defamatory that ends with "...except when
it's about Wikipedia editors, then anything goes."
There's a difference between saying "So-and-so is a CIA spy" and "I
think it possible that so-and-so is a CIA spy". Both are batshit insane
commentary, but only one is truly defamatory.