geni wrote:
On 11/8/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
Apparantly Wikipedia is a democracy where all problems can be solved by voting.
You have to admit it is an effective way of figureing out who you oponents are.
This is a good example of how the present AFD structure, for example, blatantly encourages assumption of bad faith. Should be added to "Voting is evil".
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
David Gerard wrote:
geni wrote:
On 11/8/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
Apparantly Wikipedia is a democracy where all problems can be solved by voting.
You have to admit it is an effective way of figureing out who you oponents are.
This is a good example of how the present AFD structure, for example, blatantly encourages assumption of bad faith. Should be added to "Voting is evil".
Is there a law that says "whenever a user comes up with a really stupid idea, they will inevitably be referred to [[WP:BEANS]] (the sooner the better)"? We really, REALLY need it to exist (and auto-invoke) in cases like this.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 11/8/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a law that says "whenever a user comes up with a really stupid idea, they will inevitably be referred to [[WP:BEANS]] (the sooner the better)"? We really, REALLY need it to exist (and auto-invoke) in cases like this.
I've never really understood that rule (other than avoiding disscussion of certian highly effective forms of vandalism). If there is something to the detriment of wikipedia that can be done by an individual or small group it is likely it will happen sooner rather than latter without any outside suggestions.
-- geni
On 11/8/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is a good example of how the present AFD structure, for example, blatantly encourages assumption of bad faith. Should be added to "Voting is evil".
- d.
Of course. However AFD structure limits it to a degree since the person is at most your oponent for 5 days. Straw polls on articles can define the sides for months and while it is posible to overturn an intial majority it is a pain in the neck to do takes ages. Far better to work under conditons were no one has formaly defined their position. Of course once someone has started a poll they are a pain to stop.
-- geni