On 8/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
I hope no long-established editors who know the lay of the land are criticising you for this.
-Matthew
on 8/26/07 11:45 AM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, yes, the ones called "administrators." Always in there to defend the socks and spammers and vandals in the face of editors who call crap crap. Now that I think of it the same administrator who argued for leaving a guy's comment about a girl he knew that she'd been killed and had her body stuffed in a garbage can. I give up.
But there are plenty of other editors who can do what I did, and I don't matter--and it's nice to have it so firmly established to me that this is the case.
Oh, and the DG supporter who always pipes in with only nasty comments whenever anyone gets upset about the state of Wikipedia? Don't bother, you're so predictable one could set a clock by you.
I agree with your sentiments here, KP. To question the state of the Project is to question the order of things; and there are those who, for their own personal reasons, like it just the way it is.
However, as was pointed out by someone in another thread, Wikipedia is no longer a fledgling project trying to find its place in the world. And those who would continue to behave as though it were, will find that the old formulas for control simply do not work anymore.
Marc Riddell