[WikiEN-l] Various Comments, various topics, NPOV....

[Stevertigo]

>Somebody wrote: Boy, this textbook idea is opening up a whole ugly >kettle
of fish. We even already have new poorly >conceived >acronyms.

Yes - and nobody ( I think ) mentioned that most basic of contradictions --
making a static textbook out of a dynamic website.  And think of all the
trees....

>Jimbo:At that point, it *might* be convenient to consolidate
>our claims in a single entity.  But, lawyers at that time would >advise us
the best course of action.

Yes, "give us your money."

>Andre Engels, 3Dan : Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't >know. What
I do >know is that I find working on Wikipedia a >rather irritating thing to
do lately. And irritation is not what >one expects to get from a hobby.
> At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. >There you have it.

Nice job on my super nakade problem BTW.  It does seem that there is a
conflict (related to the textbook issue) of professionals and other
institutionalized people - being trained to standards, and convention..
(lets face it...before the web, a lot of this culture was bound by mere
convention) and then all of a sudden finding some sort of finite and solid
foundation - in an environment more infinitely open than any other.  Its
hard to reconcile these two things, especially since the progeny of each
school both treat their conventions like a tradition.

Steve, 2k

>Axel: Maybe we should be less unhappy to delete material on >pages, or >
even start pages all over at times. I don't think we >should be unhappy at
all about deleting, radically rewriting and >refactoring material. Cancerous
growth is nice and all,
>but every once in a while a surgeon's knife is needed.

Ah, I see. Why does the above remind me of this?:

"Waiting to cut out the deadwood.
Waiting to clean up the city.
Waiting to follow the worms.
Waiting to put on a black shirt.
Waiting to weed out the weaklings.

Would you like to see Britannia
Rule again, my friend?
All you have to do is follow the worms."

>ANON: Your idea is one of the worst and most poorly thought >out that >I
have yet encountered in wikipedia discussions.

Well, like I said, It was food for the lions.  If there wasnt any meat on
it, y'all wouldnt have jumped on it.  The discussion served its purpose,
which was to activate some latent idea. I have that idea now, and Im
processing it now.  I keeping with the above critique, however - I have
reconsidered my naive strategy of free speech and will submit it to the
class only when I know for a fact that the class will find it agreeable. Go
figure that one out.

-Stevertigo-