Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at gmail.com: doesn't want to work with you. It's not an inability, it's a choice. Many individuals on Wikipedia were deeply opposed to the ban in question, and continue to be opposed. So when you 'it doesn't want to work with you', it's not clear what 'it' means. In any case, there is nothing to stop a banned individual from working with others to improve the project. The question comes down to whether the project is to be improved or not. For example, when our book on Scotus appears, what happens if any of the facts cited in the book are then incorporated into the article? Is copying from a book 'written by a banned user' something that Wikipedia will 'choose' not to do? What happens if I read out passages from the book to someone like Charles, and he edits the article using his own account. Is that prohibited by the 'banned' rule? In any case, I can't see anything in the banning policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:BAN<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik… prohibits this. Stepping back, it would seem extraordinary to a member of the general public that any organisation whose purpose is the construction of a comprehensive and reliable reference work should be banning specialist editors in the first place. The usual reply, that 'crowdsourcing' will take the place of specialists, doesn't seem to work. I have pointed out some serious problems with an article about one of Britain's most prominent and influential philosophers, on this very forum, and the article hasn't improved in any way since last week. Is this good PR for Wikipedia or Wikimedia? So I say it again: it's a matter of whether Wikipedia and Wikimedia 'can' work with the system to improve articles. There is in fact a choice. ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.w… WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Stepping back, it would seem extraordinary to a member of the general public that any organisation whose purpose is the construction of a comprehensive and reliable reference work should be banning specialist editors in the first place.

The usual reply, that 'crowdsourcing' will take the place of specialists, doesn't seem to work.

 I have pointed out some serious problems with an article about one of Britain's most prominent and influential philosophers, on this very forum, and the article hasn't improved in any way since last week.   Is this good PR for Wikipedia or Wikimedia?

So I say it again: it's a matter of whether Wikipedia and Wikimedia 'can' work with the system to improve articles.  There is in fact a choice.