On 10/20/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/19/07, Steven Walling
<steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't understand what the big deal is with
this guy. If the Rush Limbaugh
article can get to GA status, what is so special about this Parisian nut?
Because his followers are more akin to a cult than a political movement.
As are his detractors, maybe even more so. When two people mentioned
in an article are among those edit warring over the contents of said
article, there are major problems.
If Wikipedia is going to survive, it needs to come up with a way to
ban the people who don't follow policy, not ban everyone who isn't an
admin.
On 10/20/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/20/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
Wow. If that sticks, it looks like the downfall of Wikipedia is
closer than I had thought.
I think there's still cause for hope: we have something like two
million articles that aren't about Lyndon LaRouche.
Some of the people involved in the LaRouche article are explicitly out
to destroy Wikipedia. I see no reason to believe if successful in
destroying it for one article they'll just leave.