I had said:
As for the rest, I'm not that interested in
defending myself > against silly statements.
Anthere responded: I'm sorry if you considered my comment a silly advice. It was not meant to shock you in any sense. It was just a thought I had when you said you were in fear you would be mis-considered if it turned out an article you participated in was inaccurate. I did not mean anything else, and I apologize if what I said troubled you. Using a pseudo can be useful in many many ways. And essential sometimes.
Yeah, it's a funny ol'world where people keep misunderstanding the others.
I now say:
Anthere, I did not think your advice was one of the silly statements -- that comment was in regards to Jaaps' ill-considered comparisons to the Evas. I'm sorry if you took it as a slam against you. And you are correct that pseudonyms can be useful. What bothered me was the idea that we as wikipedians would consider it ok to allow articles of such low quality that they *could* be an embarrassment. One of the things I think the wikipedia proves on a day to day basis is that very solid articles can be turned out in a collaborative process by people who are usually not specialists. The downside is that there are also a lot of contributors who aren't with the program and also don't know what makes a solid article. When those people don't actually want to take the time to get to know other wikipedians and perhaps read through some of their contributions ( for an example that has nothing to do with me, check out the recent discussions at talk:Law and the village pump between netesq and others -- perhaps some of the argument would have been more civil had netesq bothered to find out that one of the other people was an international lawyer), it does a disservice to the project and to those fellow wikipedians, IM not so humble O.
Jules