I tend to agree in principle, but in practice the
devil is in the detail - there is plenty of room for
debate over what in fact furthers making an accurate,
comprehensive and open encyclopedia. Take, for
example, the fork to Internet Encyclopedia. We can
disagree over how the job should be done, to the
extent of fracturing the GFDL, without doubting that
we are all trying to do the same thing.
Mark
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
Let's not lose sight of the purpose of
"banning".
It's not to get
revenge, and it's not punishment for punishment's
sake. It's only a
means to an end.
We want to make an accurate, comprehensive and open
encyclopedia. We
require civility, so it's a nice congenial place to
work. We enforce
Jimbo & Larry!s NPOV policy, so that we keep bias
from creeping in under
the guise of "objective fact".
The only reason to pressure or suspend a
contributor, is because they
sidestep, subvert or openly declare war on our
values. If they show
willingness to mend their ways, all is (usually)
forgiven.
My feelings toward Plautus, Lir, Wik, and Abe (172)
are precisely the
same: if they will follow our guidelines their help
is welcome; if not,
we're better off without them. Often after a
self-imposed or "mandated"
period of time off a user thinks better of rocking
the boat and can come
on board again.
Don't mistake this is hostility toward people. Think
of it as dedication
to the mission. We sail the boundless seas together.
:-)
Ed Poor
Curmudgeonly but softhearted Bureaucrat
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail