[WikiEN-l] Appeal for community support
stevage at gmail.com
Tue Feb 28 13:03:11 UTC 2006
On 2/28/06, VeryVerily <veryverily at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting this. All noted cases
> follow a pretty obvious theme, e.g., me preventing an attempt to deny
> the almost inconceivable scale of murder and death created by a
> communist regime. Again, if this were a Nazi denying the Holocaust I
> had fought, I'd be being feted as a hero on the mailing list right
> now, and everyone would look the other way if any "rules" were broken.
I don't think anyone engaged in an edit war is ever feted as a hero.
Also, I don't believe anyone is suggesting you are not acting in good
faith. It just sounds like your way of going about your business is
possibly a little confrontational...
> I think I've addressed this point several times. (a) The arbitrators
> still refuse to specify what *isn't* grounds for a block. (b) I'd be
> a second-class editor, and everyone I tried to work with would know
> it. (c) I didn't leave for a year then come back with this appeal so
> that nothing would change, and there remains no justification for it.
People who don't revert others' changes without discussing them on the
talk pages are second-class editors? I wish we could banish first
> Actually, though I did much copyediting in my day, I honestly don't
> care that much. It's misinformation that bothers me much more.
> Indeed, misspellings have an upside, as they remind the casual reader
> that those articles are amateurish and not credible, so when they read
> on Wikipedia that Pol Pot was a kindly old man cruelly smeared by the
> corporate media, they won't take it too seriously.
At the end of the day, anyone with a particular agenda they're trying
to push (whether valid or not), has to tread carefully. If there are
people bent on denying that particular agenda, then doubly so. Being
right isn't all that matters, after all. What else needs to be said?
More information about the WikiEN-l