On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/4/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/4/07, Tony Sidaway
<tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What encyclopedic end would be achieved by someone trawling through
this mix of discarded rubbish in a belated attempt to make it
licence-compliant? Why should anyone make the effort? Let it go.
Clearly BJAODN is not part of the main namespace.
Clearly it is an important part of Wikipedia's history and its ongoing
development.
It's not important. It was just a dumb idea that might have appeared
sensible one Friday evening after the pubs closed, back when there
were only a few hundred Wikipedia editors. Let it go.
I don't want to be uncivil, but you just don't get it.
It doesn't matter whether you don't think it matters at all. It
matters how the community as a whole feels about it. There are a lot
of people within the community as a whole who wanted it back.
Apparently a majority.
If the answer is "This is dumb, how come there's so much of a
community uproar about it?", then you're asking the wrong question.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com