[WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on

[Daniel R. Tobias]

On 28 May 2007 at 17:04:33 -0500, "Slim Virgin" 
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's unfair to keep on mentioning that RfA because the candidate's not
> here to defend himself, but on the other hand, I'm reluctant to let
> some of these comments stand. Gracenotes's replies about this and
> other issues worried me because they seemed evasive. For example: "I
> suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are
> made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia."
> That set off alarm bells for me, because *all* these attack sites
> claim to have the intent of improving WP.

Not always... Wikipedia Review once had a thread titled "WIKIPEDIA IS 
EVIL AND MUST BE DESTROYED!" (in all caps as I wrote it here).  It 
would be hard to accuse *that* of having an "intent of improving 
Wikipedia".

On the other hand, a very small part of that site has anything to do 
with "outing" the private lives of editors, either.  A much bigger 
proportion consists of things like having wet-dream fantasies of 
Wikipedia being destroyed by (pick one) litigation, prosecution, 
legislation, going broke, being destroyed by an asteroid hitting the 
Earth right where its servers are (well, actually, I made that last 
one up), etc... not making any actual plans to bring about such 
catastrophes, mind you, but fully expecting somebody else, or God 
Himself, to do it soon.  Other parts consist of making fun of some of 
the silly fighting that's happening on Wikipedia, which can often 
make an inviting target... this very "BADSITES" debate is a source of 
much merriment on that score.

-- 
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/