: who want to work with you toward a common goal, as opposed : to putting up with the disruptions and distortions and : evasions and downright lies that we get so used to here. : (You want examples? Try Wik or Nico or RK. ...
More off-topic slander. I'm not surprised. I don't even contribute to Wikipedia anymore, ever since many members on this list became actively anti-Semitic. It was bad enough when proven Nazis like Stervertigo, and his cheerleader Martin (MyRedDice) Harper were allowed to push their views with the full support of this list.
It got worse when various list members wrote and telephoned me privately in support, but admitted that they would never speak out here in public because they were afraid of being ganged up on (they were correct.)
It got even worse when your so-called arbitartors publicly demanded that I accept admitted Nazis and work with them. (Such quotes are still archived.) Sane people would see that as obvious Jew-baiting; similarly, demanding that our black contributors work with members of the Ku Klux Klan would be racist black-hating. Yet sadly when this was brought to the attention of this list, none of you mentioned any problem with this.
It got even worse: In recent weeks Steve Rubenstein warned you all about another Jew-hater who was constantly vandalizing Wikipedia and clearly pushing Nazi websites. Yet in response, you refused to ban this person. Outrageously many of you said that you wanted this Nazi's views, and that you wanted to find a way to keep him on as a contributor.
People like you would be (and indeed, are) fired from respectable encyclopedia projects.
Every wonder why so many people leave this project? It has been taken over by leftists, anarchists, anti-science whackos and hatemongers.
To be blunt, as long as you refuse to reform your system, and as long as you allow these people to push hatred and nonsense, Wikipedia will never be respected. It may become popular, as Google hits show, but then again the Nazi-website "JewWatch" is popular as well. Being associated with this kind of popularity is something that I do not want. I should have listed to my colleagues last year, when they told me that they forbade their students from using Wikipedia. They said it was anti-science, anti-Semitic, out of control, and that without empowered moderators it merely created facts by voting.
That is the kind of leftist Stanlinism-type "research" that truly educated peopel abhor. Facts are not created by the consensus of the most radical writers, no matter what the deconstructionists and leftists among you might wish to believe.
While Jimbo's idea of an open-source encyclopedia still is a very good idea, Wikipedia will never be achieve this goal. At best, it will be a good feeder and working sandbox for articles that can be vetted by professionals for a second-level, stable open-source encyclopedia, like Nupedia was supposed to be. But the Wikipedia itself will at best become well-known and infamous...not good.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover