On 12/29/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
Wikipedia Review never misses an opportunity to bash Wikipedia for
any reason, or no reason, for anything anybody connected with it does
or fails to do. Consistency is not a virtue for them; they can
simultaneously attack Wikipedians for deleting stuff, for failing to
delete stuff, for taking action in a dictatorial manner without
allowing debate, for engaging in too much time-wasting debate instead
of useful action, for being too fascistic, for being too anarchistic,
for being too highbrow, too lowbrow, too middlebrow, too left-wing,
too right-wing, too pro-American, too anti-American, too academic,
too anti-academic, too pop-cultural, too anti-pop-cultural; for
airing too much dirty laundry in public, for trying to shove its
flaws under the carpet; because it's an unstoppable juggernaut,
because it's an unstable mess that's about to collapse; it's
capitalist, it's communist; Jimbo screws it up by exercising his
personal whims, Jimbo is a do-nothing figurehead who refuses to act
at all; critics get harrassed, critics get ignored; people get banned
unfairly, people don't get banned who deserve it; its mailing lists
and IRC rooms have nothing but idle, pointless, off-topic chitchat;
its mailing lists and IRC rooms are where all the important policy
decisions get made to the exclusion of people who participate on the
actual Wikipedia discussion pages.
This should be on a plaque somewhere.
--Ryan
--
[[en:User:Merovingian]]