On 27/11/2007, Stephanie M. Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ironically, this controversy has resulted in me visiting Wikipedia Review for the first time that I can recall, searching for a bit of information that had been posted and then removed from Wikipedia itself. Found it, too.
Should I be admitting this in public?
I did, in my way. I'd looked at them once or twice, and thought, 'what a generally nasty minded group.' But I've been there more than a few times this week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_commen...
I still think they're out for blood enmasse and not reliable because of that (the amount of gloating over Durova's downfall was disgusting), but I want information to make decisions, and they had some of it, while Wikipedia was taking it away, despite the fact it never needed to or should have been 'private' to begin with.
S.
Wikipedia Review's what you make it basically. All it's meant to be is a forum for freer speech than is allowed on Wikipedia (where simply disagreeing over a point with an admin can get you banned!) - there's nice people and bad people, and the views of individual members are very rarely those of everyone on the board, like Wikipedia.
Sure I personally don't agree with "gloating", but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to delete peoples' messages and ban them as would probably be the case with Wikipedia's more stringent rules.