-----Original Message----- From: David Goodman [mailto:dgoodmanny@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 06:10 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]] indefinitely full protected
If there are one or two good generally trusted people preferably with admin powers intent on reverting the nonsense, they can continue to do it. Many of us have a few articles we watch intensively.
Or, assuming we're a community, the situation would be suitable for encouraging wider participation--just as for other contentious matters.
I do recognize that this is perhaps a special case--and I hope will not be followed by attempts from the same quarter to sneak their way into the admins. Personally, I follow JS Mill, that we must be open even to those who would destroy us. If the great majority of the community want to protect it, we will not be destroyed.
_________________________ Yes, good to study them, but important to study them, not just the face they present to the public. That's what a lot of the edit warring is over. Them trying to suppress well-sourced statements of their leader, not meant for public consumption.
Fred
Please do not be under the delusion that i think them other than dangerous lunatics. But there are enough sane people in WP to deal with them. Let them try, and let them be reverted; semiprotection will deal with the anons, and short periods of full protection will deal with the others until they can be blocked.
On 10/20/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: David Goodman [mailto:dgoodmanny@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 06:10 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[Views of Lyndon LaRouche]] indefinitely full protected
If there are one or two good generally trusted people preferably with admin powers intent on reverting the nonsense, they can continue to do it. Many of us have a few articles we watch intensively.
Or, assuming we're a community, the situation would be suitable for encouraging wider participation--just as for other contentious matters.
I do recognize that this is perhaps a special case--and I hope will not be followed by attempts from the same quarter to sneak their way into the admins. Personally, I follow JS Mill, that we must be open even to those who would destroy us. If the great majority of the community want to protect it, we will not be destroyed.
Yes, good to study them, but important to study them, not just the face they present to the public. That's what a lot of the edit warring is over. Them trying to suppress well-sourced statements of their leader, not meant for public consumption.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l