On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:59:41 -0400, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> We were inundated with spam. We still are. G11
is a necessary tool,
> and in any case we could creatively delete blatant spam as vandalism
> anyway. The vast majority of G11 tagged articles *are* abominations,
> unlike G11. Spend time looking at CAT:CSD some time.
With all due respect, that's certainly the company
line. I spend plenty
of time w/CAT:CSD - we're not inundated in a way that required such a
breathless, panicky, rushed situation like we ended up with.
Rushed? People had been asking for G11 for as long as I can remember.
It was going to happen sooner or later anyway, and a firm steer from
Foundation that spam, abuse of Wikipedia resources for self-promotion,
is an abuse and should be stamped on, is hardly a controversial idea.
Of course, we're deathly afraid of anything that
might actually benefit
someone outside of the project, to boot, so I guess I shouldn't be that
surprised by the general Office/Foundation reaction. I just chalk it up
to another one of those bizarre deals.
You have a strange view of things. The entire project is for the
benefit of people outside the foundation, mainly people like you and
me and my kids.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG