Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 6/4/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
Clearly BJAODN is not part of the main namespace. Clearly it is an important part of Wikipedia's history and its ongoing development.
It's not important. It was just a dumb idea that might have appeared sensible one Friday evening after the pubs closed, back when there were only a few hundred Wikipedia editors. Let it go.
Perhaps it was a dumb idea. I rarely look at it myself, but I would not go so far as criticizing others for doing so. I do not feel bothered by the idea that others might like different things than I, or consider different things valuable. I was here when there were only "a few hundred" editors, and recognize these pages as a part of our heritage.
Ec