"Monahon, Peter B." Peter.Monahon@USPTO.GOV wrote:

Response: I like to search user_talk pages at least because it a last bastion where over-zealous admins may not delete the content I seek. It is generally considered non-competitive, and therefore non-combative. I find it to contains a wealth of valuable, conceptualizing information.

At this point I'm bemused, but not yet baffled.

<snip>

For me, too much information is never enough! I can go to http://www.bartlby.com/ or http://www.dictionary.com/ if I want a brief synoptic overview, and I have http://www. credoreference.com/ subscription at work for pan-research. I come to Wikipedia to get what only Wikipedia offers - a community of people passionately interested in the same subject I am, and I want all the attendant "noise" that comes with it.

<snip>

And now the message seems only one step removed from the automagical incoherence of usenet sporgery. That could be a fault with the reader, but rereading didn't help.

Whatever the point was, it appears to be founded on a misconception. Wikipedia is not "a community of people passionately interested in the same subject" the writer is, whatever that may be. Or rather, it's only that if the subject is creating a free* encyclopedia that anyone* can edit*.

<small>* Terms and conditions apply.</small>

If there was an important point being made here, perhaps it could be rephrased so that even over-zealous admins can understand it.

In the time I read that twice, and replied to it, I could have bodged up something on [[Yvonne Serruys]], and perhaps found a pd image or two to go with it. So, back to lurking for me then.

Angus