Steven Walling wrote:
"a kindlier, gentler attack site"? That's supposed to be a defence? It's like saying some Nazis weren't as bad as Goering.
It triggered my sarcasm meter. Perhaps yours needs a bit of recalibration. :p
I'm not defending the validity of the lawsuit. What I was criticizing is an attack on those who criticise a site built for the express purpose of criticism. Saying that WA has the right to snipe at every little action taken by admins, and then calling those who give equally harsh criticism of WA "cowards" is obvious hypocrisy. Aren't the cowards those who build an entire separate, anonymous apparatus for taking potshots (even useful ones) at admins the cowards? Why not have some balls and try and affect a real, lasting change from within Wikipedia, rather than running away and creating a space for disgruntled users to tell their sob story without any opportunity for rebuttal?
Personally, I think that Rootology had an excellent idea, but poor execution of that idea. He was, however, at least making an attempt to keep the bullshit down - and the bullshit was being flung from both sides.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Rootology did have the balls to "try and affect a real, lasting change from within Wikipedia", and he was banned for "trolling" as a result of that . So he set up a secondary site designed to try and affect a change, using a clear identity. He executed it poorly, but I have no doubt that he genuinely did have good intentions behind it.