John Bradley wrote:
It is strange that you can decide that one group of editors is valuable to wikipedia but not another.
Can you show me some data which demonstrates that the losses cause by straight talking would exceed the saving acheived by some editor pruning? or is this another case of assuming that the first idea that comes into your head is right and fighting for it.
You'll also note that this is the first time Dave Gerard has responded to me with anything other than msgs saying he will not talk with me.
Wikipedia welcomes anyone who contributes and follows policy. "Cite sources", "no personal attacks" and "neutral point of view" sound fairly reasonable. Given that the role of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, the aim of an encyclopedia is to educate, and discussion can help to educate, I think that just talking to people in a calm and sensible manner is going to achieve a whole lot more than attacking them, because if you can actually DISCUSS something, education will take place and the issue will be resolved. Experts in a particular field may be frustrated with having to put up with ignorant plebs, but if say "I am an expert in (topic), the facts are (such and such)" AND provide some reference material to back it up, you will be well-respected. Screaming "You idiot! That's wrong!" will get nothing but frowns and shakes of the head.
PS. I advise against publishing your full name, address and phone number in your email. This mailing list ends up in newsgroups, so if someone takes an exception to what you say, you could be in serious personal danger.