On 11/15/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
geni wrote:
What is there that a community fork achieves that a WikiProject does not, in your view?
A community fork allows people to claim a greater level of ownership of articles.
OK. Now, please address the problem:
We have WikiProjects to create such an environment, and they have the added bonus of keeping the content usable within Wikipedia (so that, e.g., the creators of a community fork aren't so damn pissed off with their treatment here they pick an incompatible license as a "fuck-you").
As I asked before:
Are you honestly saying you think driving an expert off Wikipedia to found a fork of the community, and the process by which it happened, is *good*? Or are you saying the end justifies the means - whatever it takes to achieve a subject fork?
- d.
On 11/15/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Are you honestly saying you think driving an expert off Wikipedia to found a fork of the community, and the process by which it happened, is *good*? Or are you saying the end justifies the means - whatever it takes to achieve a subject fork?
I don't think this is the ideal way to active a fork. However I belive people driveing others off wikipedia (unless they are dissrupting wikipedia which is a pain to prove) is your area not mine. You have a mandate to solve the problem of people abuseing the system. If people are driveing others off wikipedia by abuseing the system why are they not in front of arbcom? It has to be accepted that there are some experts who can't cope with being repeatedly question. Such people are probably better off somewhere other than wikipedia.
-- geni