On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:58:39 +1000, Mark Gallagher fuddlemark@gmail.com wrote:
Did you actually read WA at all? It attempted to be a kindler, gentler attack site. It gave me the willies, being run by a known dickhead, but it was easy to see that: a) it was doing no harm, and b) if its stated intentions were genuine[1], it could actually be a Force For Good.
Yes. But there was one fatal flaw: the burden of proof was reversed, so that grudge bearers could insert whatever the hell they liked, and the "rouge admin" then had to prove they were right by reference, in many cases, to things which the WA crown could not see, often for excellent reasons (deleted attack pages, for example).
As an assumption of bad faith, it was problematic, as an assumption of bad faith with most of the power given to idiots like Jonathan Barber (JB196), who screams "abuse!" every time we block one of his hundreds of socks, and screams even louder when he says it was not him. The idea of going away and thus preventing any of this purported collateral damage is simply not on his agenda. So I can't say I'm sorry to see it go. Rootology is, I believe, sincere in wanting Wikipedia to be better, but a good number of the contributors are sincere only in wanting to pretend that their being booted for rampant self-promotion and idiocy was somehow not appropriate.
The prize piece for me is the idea that I, personally, am sexist because I do not recognise that there are any major women composers of opera. See if you can identify the statement in this arbitration case that "proves" I am a sexist and absolutely demands an apology, lack of which apology "proves" that I am an /unrepentant/ sexist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry...
Guy (JzG)