[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

Cormac Lawler cormaggio at gmail.com
Fri Mar 31 16:42:34 UTC 2006


On 3/31/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Sure, improve it, but that's no reason to lambaste its
> >community, or make false claims about it. (David, you still haven't
> >addressed my questioning of how historical pages make Meta unusable).
>
>
> Because you can't tell what on earth is active and what isn't. e.g. Is
> [[Meta:Babel]] active? It's supposed to be the Village Pump of Meta. I
> see tumbleweeds blow past. e.g. Is [[m:RFA]] checked at all on any
> regular basis? The bureaucrats were notable by their complete absence
> until Linuxbeak ran for bureaucrat, which appeared to cause a sudden
> flurry of activity and declarations that there were enough bureaucrats
> on Meta, even though there was visibly no-one minding the store. That
> sort of thing. I've given both these examples before on the wiki,
> though not here (my apologies).


This doesn't answer *any* of my very simple question (see above
*again*) - which I think cuts to the point of why me and others are
angry at your '''attitude''' (note: not work). Meta is very clearly a
working wiki, with tons of work going on (local chapters, new project
proposals, research, wikimania etc.); just the pages you refer to are
never the most active pages anyway (and as for pages in general being
active or not - ever heard of the history button?). I didn't bother
responding to your question on meta:babel, because the discussion was
happening on this mailing list, having come from the project's talk
page and Requests for deletion (as you well know).

>
> Note, by the way, that everyone listed on [[WM:OM]] are individuals -
> despite, e.g. Anthere answering one person [1] with a reply to what
> someone else said [2]. So, e.g., Linuxbeak's list of things he wants
> isn't mine (e.g. an en: only meta).
>
> I will note also that the incumbents have successfully driven out at
> least some of the "insurgents" [3]. Are you proud? If not, why?
>


Well, I'd say you should ask yourself the same question.

/me walks away..

C


>
> - d.
>
> (I'm giving references because people are too often claiming not to
> know what I'm talking about in this discussion.)
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta&diff=316433&oldid=316395
> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta&diff=315566&oldid=314729
> - I do agree this was inappropriate, but it does help not to answer
> the wrong person, as if everyone involved is a single entity.
> [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta&diff=316383&oldid=316371
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



More information about the foundation-l mailing list