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.