[WikiEN-l] Can you all stop carrying on about whether Slate is an attack site, please?

[fredbaud at waterwiki.info]

-----Original Message-----
From: William Pietri [mailto:william at scissor.com]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:29 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can you all stop carrying on about whether Slate	is an attack site, please?

Christiano Moreschi wrote:
> Oh, come off it, that's ridiculous (I assume you're all still talking about attack sites). Attack sites cannot possibly be relevant to more than a score of articles. The fact that such a tiny number of articles clogs up so much drama is ridiculous. Wikipedia has much more grave problems. 
>   

Respectfully, I disagree.

It's true that the issue itself is tiny. But I think the proposed 
solution -- one apparently currently in use -- undermines one of 
Wikpedia's fundamental mechanisms, that of open discussion leading to 
community consensus.

I feel similarly about a number of things that the Bush administration 
has gotten up to. On the grand scale, their current transgressions -- 
the Iraq war aside -- really aren't that large. A little snooping, some 
dubious arrests, a little God mixed in with government, a bit of crony 
capitalism. But I believe that accepting them puts the US on a path that 
could result in the destruction of core principles that I value deeply.

I'm glad to let go any number of things where I'm on the wrong side of 
the consensus; I trust that we'll work them out eventually. But I 
believe that a damnatio memoriae policy a dose of mandatory goodthink 
will harm our very ability to work things out.

William

-- 
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri

_______________________________________________

You continue to be quite mixed about what we are going to do about the article in Slate. Slate is not going to be treated as an attack site. Linking to that particular article is discouraged. You continue to flail away at phantoms of your own imagining.

Fred