Yes, he is very annoying--all the more so because he's obviously well-educated and therefore hard to dismiss as an ordinary crackpot. He hasn't been too terribly destructive. He just cranks out reams and reams of subjectivist rants with quality inversely proportionate to their quantity. But one or two sentences out of every page he writes actually has some interesting insight worth keeping, and he does put up with my abuse pretty well, so I haven't yet been tempted to suggest any action.
Besides, his anonymity will always serve to minimize his credibility, so he'll lose a lot of arguments on those grounds alone. I know I've suggested in the past that perhaps only logged-in users should be allowed to edit, but I think I'm more inclined to leave things as they are, and just have a social norm here that anonymous editors should simply suffer the consequences to the credibility and lose arguments by default.
You Wrote:
Hi all -- just wanted you to know that I might be around more on the list than the Pedia for a bit (unless something egregious comes up
and
needs editing). I'm teaching two new classes this quarter, so
time's a
bit short...and frankly, I'm finding 24's rants somewhat
disquieting. I
know this probably sounds dumb, but I've come to think of us as a community of nice people -- or at least people with whom I feel safe
in
revealing my name, etc. (more info is no longer on my page). 24's comments on meta make me wish I hadn't. I don't know if it's in earnest, or if it's just its unpleasant way of playing games, but without trying to sound paranoid, do we have any systems in place to discourage the frighteningly anti-social types? Anyway, maybe it's
just
me being paranoid... JHK
Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l 0