On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote: The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather
explicitly
said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox.
This is not a problem. That is precisely what I did.
Tony... When engaged in a general campaign regarding a class of things, the LAST thing you do is to initiate it starting with a particular item which you personally despise, while admitting publically that you despise it.
As a rule, nobody ever believes that you didn't simply have an ulterior motive to the campaign as a whole afterwards, and it brings the whole campaign against the class into disrepute.
It is not enough that you have no conflicts of interest. You have to avoid appearances of conflict of interest.
This is politics 101. The way you have done this has brought the whole effort to delete all the religious userboxes (which I agree with in principle) into disrepute.
Like it or not, the current WP structure is in large part a political game, a large part of which is an engaged group of editors with less experience (both in WP and in online activities). Complaining that it has come to that is one thing. Acting in a manner which is antagonistic towards it is folly. Worse than folly, it is counterproductive and disruptive.
-george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com CC A-SA 2.5