On 15/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:00:50 -0500, "Ron
Ritzman"
<ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While wordy, Dan did do a very good job of
analagizing his take on
some recent controversies and I partially agree with his take.
However, even if some of our responses to all this shit might have
been in poor judgement, the blame for it has to primarily be put on
those who want to make Wikipedia, "not Wikipedia" the same way Casey
wanted to make football "not football".
And that's how I see it too.
In fact, if we could all publicly agree on this, I think most of the
debate would probably go away.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
I think the reasons for WR being set up are inaccurate, but a lot of
the rest seems pretty spot on...
The meta page only had the first chapter, updated it now so it's
readable as one thing:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_joy_in_Maddenville%2C_a_parable
--
Selina
http://wikipediareview.com/?showuser=1
"I *do* think criticism is good for Wikipedia [...] Good quality
criticism is valuable, and Wikipedians should listen to it, and
actually make changes based on it. Are there corrupt administrators,
then we should get rid of them." --Jimmy Wales (in an email to a
Wikipedia Review member)