On 10/20/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@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@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/07, Anthony wikimail@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.