NB much of the thread is about Z commenting on Y saying that X was wrong to try to strangle the thread at birth.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
NB much of the thread is about Z commenting on Y saying that X was wrong to try to strangle the thread at birth.
This strikes me as a reasonable thing to comment on, though. This issue is one that's of great importance to the Wikipedia community. If Slate's no longer the subject perhaps change the subject header, but IMO the thread hasn't really drifted all that far.
Oh, come off it, that's ridiculous (I assume you're all still talking about attack sites). Attack sites cannot possibly be relevant to more than a score of articles. The fact that such a tiny number of articles clogs up so much drama is ridiculous. Wikipedia has much more grave problems.
Moreschi
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:57:07 -0600 From: bryan.derksen@shaw.ca To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can you all stop carrying on about whether Slate is an attack site, please?
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
NB much of the thread is about Z commenting on Y saying that X was wrong to try to strangle the thread at birth.
This strikes me as a reasonable thing to comment on, though. This issue is one that's of great importance to the Wikipedia community. If Slate's no longer the subject perhaps change the subject header, but IMO the thread hasn't really drifted all that far.
_________________________________________________________________ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.com
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Oh, come off it, that's ridiculous (I assume you're all still talking about attack sites). Attack sites cannot possibly be relevant to more than a score of articles. The fact that such a tiny number of articles clogs up so much drama is ridiculous. Wikipedia has much more grave problems.
Respectfully, I disagree.
It's true that the issue itself is tiny. But I think the proposed solution -- one apparently currently in use -- undermines one of Wikpedia's fundamental mechanisms, that of open discussion leading to community consensus.
I feel similarly about a number of things that the Bush administration has gotten up to. On the grand scale, their current transgressions -- the Iraq war aside -- really aren't that large. A little snooping, some dubious arrests, a little God mixed in with government, a bit of crony capitalism. But I believe that accepting them puts the US on a path that could result in the destruction of core principles that I value deeply.
I'm glad to let go any number of things where I'm on the wrong side of the consensus; I trust that we'll work them out eventually. But I believe that a damnatio memoriae policy a dose of mandatory goodthink will harm our very ability to work things out.
William