But I have to
respectfully disagree with both of you here-- do you
really
want to forbid newbies from contributing to
anything controversial?
No. Where you went wrong - i.e. put yourself in a false position - was to
persist in editing. You may not have known what rule you were infringing,
but there is a rule. You were then blocked, I assume for 24 hours, which
except for Wikiholics is hardly the end of the world. You don't have to
like it.
What I'm pointing out here is that there is a learning curve. The point
about going straight for the most contentious topics is that the learning
curve is going to be very steep. One can figure out why this must be.
_Every_ non-wiki technical person I have explained wiki to, has explained
back 'can't possibly work'. They are confident that a free-for-all in
editing must be a disaster. Wikipedia shows they are missing something.
They are missing the community self-policing effect. If a wiki works - not
all do - the policing of graffiti on [[Ronald Reagan]] is going to be
effective.
Now your version of the learning curve may seem to be 'your rights and how
to get them'. The system is set up so this is secondary to 'freedom to
edit'. Has to be that way. You'd do better to learn something about
editing, in the shallower waters.
This time, you're so full of it. What learning curve? Learn that some ******
abuse their power to get their will through? Newbie didn't do anything
special except to make a very truthfull addition to a page and was harassed
by two reaganite sysops. Neither did newbie break any rule and shouldn't be
banned. In fact, since neither of them has apologised yet and continue to
act like pussies I suggest both of them should be banned for 24 hours. It's
hardly the end of the world. They don't have to like it.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*