On 29 May 2006 at 01:17, "Stephen Bain" stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.
That would be sinking to their level, wouldn't it?
However, I, too, am disappointed that WR has taken the low road and, instead of providing constructive criticism (which every project needs; goodness knows that there are plenty of problems and issues with Wikipedia which could be brought out constructively), has been a gathering place for people determined to destroy Wikipedia, by any means no matter how sleazy.
On 5/28/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 29 May 2006 at 01:17, "Stephen Bain" stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred.
That would be sinking to their level, wouldn't it?
It would be hard, if not impossible, to sink to their level.
I don't see any moral dilemma in eliminating (using only legal and ethical means, of course) a threat to the project and especially to the privacy, employment, and potentially safety of individual contributors. The Foundation should take one of these trolls (it doesn't matter which one but the guy who caused Snowspinner his police problems would be an excellent choice if he can be identified) and use the legal system and/or the press to crucify him. The value of a troll's head on a pike as a deterrent to other trolls would be worth the cost and difficulty. Otherwise we're going to have the "wasn't s/he a great contributor, too bad s/he had to leave Wikipedia" conversation again and again and again. Maybe you see this as sinking to their level; I see it as a matter of self-preservation. But then I've always been less of a turn the other cheek fellow and more of a don't bring a knife to a gunfight kind of guy.