I see the arb com ruling as providing incentive for us to arrive at some compromise--more precisely, to try to force us to arrive at some compromise. (the alternative is that it will be decided by who's user behavior escalates out of control the earlier). As someone taking a basically opposite position from Ned on the issues, I understand his postings here and elsewhere as a sincere expression of a willingness to try to find something that will let us return to writing and improving articles--and I join him in this. Of course , neither of us can reasonably expect to really like whatever will be the resulting compromise. Once we all accept that, we should be able to find something.
DGG
On 12/29/07, Ned Scott ned@nedscott.com wrote:
While I am hopping that it is possible to better explain the rationale for those who want to trim some of these articles down, I'm also saying when we fail to do that we can't enforce the view by edit waring or by force.
--Ned Scott
On Dec 29, 2007, at 4:19 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
You make an error that is common among politicians. It's a belief that more people would find a position acceptable if only you could explain it better. This seems to ignore the possibility that people are rejecting the position because they feel it's wrong.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l