On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
> On 10/25/02 11:02 AM, "Larry Sanger" <lsanger(a)nupedia.com> wrote:
>
> > I see a lot of good points being made here, and I frankly don't know what
> > to think about some of the issues raised. But I'd like to offer this
> > perspective.
> >
> > On wasting time on recalcitrants: I (obviously) totally sympathize with
> > those who say they don't want to waste their time dealing with
> > recalcitrant users.
> >
> > Wikipedia contributors can be difficult in a variety of ways. Not all of
> > them require banning, and the most common types can't:
>
> <snip laundry list of "difficult" contributors>
>
> It is a detrimental approach to come up with categories of problem
> contributors. Every contributor is individual, emotional, biased, and a bit
> kooky. Noone is perfectly normal--that's just the average. Rather, we should
> try to avoid CommunityExile (see MeatballWiki) if possible.
(1) The list you refer to is not of difficult contributors, Cunc; it is a
list of *behaviors*. Read it again. And as long as we are going to ban
some people for some *behaviors*, we sure as heck *better* clearly define
those behaviors.
(2) I don't read MeatballWiki and I don't think they define Wikipedia's
values for Wikipedia. We define our own values. I don't know if that's
what "avoiding CommunityExile" means, and I don't care. Are you saying we
should never ban anyone? That surely isn't your view, though; you thought
we should ban 24.
> > This is a bit off the topic, but it came up and I can't let it pass. KQ
> > said recently that Cunctator is the project's *conscience*. Perhaps KQ
> > was just trying to be nice, but I think that is actually unfair to the
> > rest of us, who like to think we have a principled approach to the project
> > as well. It also accords Cunc respect as somehow *the* representative of
> > a *particularly* moral point of view, to whom the rest of us ought to pay
> > special heed--I disagree with that and I enjoin you not to accord *any*
> > one person such special respect. (I'm not sure KQ meant to imply all this
> > by "conscience of the project," and I also doubt, in his reasonableness
> > and modesty, that Cunc would reject the description when cashed out as I
> > have done, but I just want this to be clear.)
>
> I suppose all this faint praise will make me a better devil's advocate...
I wasn't aware of even faintly praising you, but if you want to claim to
be faintly praised, go right ahead. ;-)
Done with Wikipedia for today,
Larry