On 28 May 2007 at 17:04:33 -0500, "Slim Virgin"
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's unfair to keep on mentioning that RfA because
the candidate's not
here to defend himself, but on the other hand, I'm reluctant to let
some of these comments stand. Gracenotes's replies about this and
other issues worried me because they seemed evasive. For example: "I
suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are
made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia."
That set off alarm bells for me, because *all* these attack sites
claim to have the intent of improving WP.
Not always... Wikipedia Review once had a thread titled "WIKIPEDIA IS
EVIL AND MUST BE DESTROYED!" (in all caps as I wrote it here). It
would be hard to accuse *that* of having an "intent of improving
Wikipedia".
On the other hand, a very small part of that site has anything to do
with "outing" the private lives of editors, either. A much bigger
proportion consists of things like having wet-dream fantasies of
Wikipedia being destroyed by (pick one) litigation, prosecution,
legislation, going broke, being destroyed by an asteroid hitting the
Earth right where its servers are (well, actually, I made that last
one up), etc... not making any actual plans to bring about such
catastrophes, mind you, but fully expecting somebody else, or God
Himself, to do it soon. Other parts consist of making fun of some of
the silly fighting that's happening on Wikipedia, which can often
make an inviting target... this very "BADSITES" debate is a source of
much merriment on that score.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips:
http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site:
http://domains.dan.info/