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