mav writes:
Anybody who believes that is is possible /not/ to have bickering and wrangling in Wikipedia hasn't spent much time working with large
groups of
people in an academic setting (or even in an office working on a
project for
that matter).
I've been here since April 2001. you judge if that's long enough to determine whether things are getting better or worse, or staying the same. thanks for the personal snub though. I suppose I had it coming.
Different people have different viewpoints and Wikipedia IMO does a
very good
job of distilling the POV down to their NPOV elements. But this
process takes
a lot of time for highly contentious subjects. It also occasionally
requires
us to expel those people who can't work with others - but the same is
true in
the real world.
Perhaps I'm just impatient then. Certainly the pedia, as of late, seems to be for some other type of person than me.
kq
On Saturday 01 February 2003 04:41 pm, kq wrote:
mav wrote: Anybody who believes that it is possible to /not/ have bickering and wrangling in Wikipedia hasn't spent much time working with large groups of people in an academic setting (or even in an office working on a project for that matter).
I've been here since April 2001. you judge if that's long enough to determine whether things are getting better or worse, or staying the same. thanks for the personal snub though. I suppose I had it coming.
No! You are reading too much into my words. You never said that it is possible for us to keep from bickering and wrangling so my above statement was not directed at you but at Wikipedia skeptics in general who /do/ say exactly that (and then fault us for not accomplishing this artificial ideal).
As usual I was only thinking about the larger picture and was majorly insensitive in how I presented myself.
Please except my sincerest apologies for being so stupidly unclear.
--mav
Added more events to [[January 30]] and updated all the year pages and many other articles linked from that page.