--- julien tayon <julien(a)tayon.net> wrote:
we begin to face massive anonymous / non-anonymous
topics related to one another such as nationalism,
racism, racialism in
a clearly oriented direction.
example new definition :
Le nationalisme est une politique dont les objectifs
essentiellement l'ind�pendance, l'unit� et la
prosp�rit� de sa propre
nation et de son peuple.
Nationalism is a policy whitch goals are essentialy
the unity and the prosperity of its own nation and
(sic but not the problem) No mistakes in translation
"own nation" refers
We have many "anonymous" rewriting of sensible
topics such as
racialism, and racism
For instance, now, we explain why racism is totally
acceptable especialy on a scientific point of view.
The definition had
had its change totally re-oriented without any
These people don't intend to respect the moral
contract of wikipedia.
Wake-up if you just let it happen, you will face
quite a problem. Now
it is easy to face 3 people with a current team of
contributors, but when it will be twice as the
original contributors you
might be quite annoyed.
I know I'll get the blame for being alarmist and
�paranoid�, but please
if you are not convinced just wonder what if it was
true ? True, that
we get these people trashing all the wikipedia
project's spirit and part
of the content, wouldn't it worth a try to imagine
the solution we can
consider to face that problem ?
PS: Sorry for not respecting the netiquette and
posting so much so soon.
Et pourquoi ne pas traiter autrui comme si il �tait en
train de contribuer � l'effort collectif ?
Une contribution anonyme peut �tre extr�mement
b�n�fique, tout comme une contribution attribu�e peut
�tre source de d�sagr�ment.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.