Commnents by NSK in the past month:
----BEGIN QUOTE You need to ensure that all WP participants want to help WP, instead of pushing POV or exercising power. WP's shortcomings is a problem of motives: People join WP for their own benefit instead of WP's benefit.
If "be bold" means anarchy without organisation and process then I think that's a bad policy that should be repealled ASAP.
Sites that claim to be serious and wish to compete with Britannica need motivated committed editors, proof readers, maintainers, sysops and policy makers, i.e. organisation and structure. Serious sites should not be very friendly to the uneducated masses (i.e. disallow anon editing) and rely mostly on a small but very effective group of well-educated volunteers who do their work for a greater good and not just for themselves. For example, editing of scientific articles could be limited to university students or holders of a B.Sc. degree. However, I do recognise that it is extremely difficult to find this kind of volunteers and maintain a huge site only by their own work.
I think people need to realise that deleting something does not improve WP. On the other hand, re-writing an article does improve WP. I imagine people prefer deletion because it is easier or because they enjoy "being a cop".
Commenting on someone's voting patterns is not very democratic.
My impression was that some people prefer to participate in endless discussions about whether a particular article is encyclopedic or not or whether it should be deleted or moved instead of editing or improving the actual content. But it may be just an impression.
I think there are many people here who do not actually care about building an encyclopedia.
On Saturday 23 October 2004 21:31, Rick wrote:
VfD has the consensus support of the community. Articles about schools listed on VfD have, for the most part, consensus support to be deleted.
Probably because the masses enjoy destroying things. 18th century encyclopedists didn't allow the uneducated masses to destroy the knowledge.
Let's ban people who list articles on VfD which aren't deleted.
Nice idea.
---- END QUOTE
So, tell me again that he hasn't conducted a campaign of personal abuse.
And this doesn't even discuss his "ideas" about changing Wikipedia into a "knowledge base" into of an encyclopedia, which he denigrates.
I'm also sick and tired of being attacked for making person attacks, when the people on the other side who also make the personal attacks get a free ride.
RickK
Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com wrote: Rick wrote:
Gee. Somebody who never posts on Wikipedia (as I suspected) making
I got the impression he does edit some.
demands that Wikipedia policy be changed. And does anybody wonder why
I saw no demands or anything remotely resembling a demand, only suggestions.
I think he's probably a troll?
Your apparent definition of "troll" is completely at odds with any I am familiar with. NSK has merely tried to be helpful, and has been entirely cordial.
You are being incredibly hostile for no discernable reason other than you happen to disagree with some of the things NSK has said. Others have also disagreed with some of the things NSK has said (I disagree with some of them myself), but none have been rude or hostile except for you, and there is no reason to be rude or hostile. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.