On 5/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007 11:42:35 -0700, "Todd
Allen" <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Since when is it immature to think for oneself?
What's mature about doing something simply because someone else won't?
In what way is that thinking for yourself? As said before, some
people are so obsessed with getting one over on "the man" that they
are brazenly insisting on a policy of "include until we get the
takedown notice" which is a complete reversal of the correct approach,
which is not to include controversial content until there is consensus
to include it.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
I think that it is simplistic to characterize es's decision as a pure
knee jerk reaction against en. I took their stance as "Well, we
believe that we should include the key as a repository of knowledge,
and the wikipedia that normally includes everything is falling down on
the job, so it's up to us to have it." While this may not jive with
your views on the matter, it is a valid and reasonable idea, and
should not be dismissed on grounds of immaturity.
Sincerely,
Silas Snider
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who
Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category
of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad
Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
(AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious
Editing Club of Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------