[WikiEN-l] Wikipaedia is an attack site, too. (was Re: There are no...)

[Armed Blowfish]

On 27/09/2007, Brock Weller <brock.weller at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good god. First off, the site is called wikipedia. It is a
> free-as-in-speech encyclopedia/encyclopaedia depending on what
> flavor/flavour of english you speak.

No, it isn't.  Chinese people are censored.  Banned people
are censored.  Wikipaedia certainly isn't free speech.

> That doesn't change the name of the
> site being wikipedia, not wikipaedia. So stop being childish about the name,
> it's messing with my filters.

Do you want to write me a program to correct my spelling?
Alternatively, you could add 'Wikipaedia' to your filters.

> Secondly, for all that is holy, no one cares about this anymore,

Or, to be specific, most of the people who care about it
are being censored.

> the system works well,

Hurting people isn't working well.

> we are not about to collapse,

You already have, or what was that on /. ?

> and the only people who disagree
> are those fringe wackos at WR who are
> convinced we're CIA and MI5 and
> whatever else the dreamed up this week.

I disagree, and I happen to support SlimVirgin.

Not everyone on WR is the same.

> And if you are honestly comparing us
> to ED, well, you've then shown you are incapable of logic or
> reason, reverting to hyperbole to try to shove a pointy stick where a good,
> well thought argument would normally go, and it's about time you got modded
> again.
>
> --
> -Brock

You have not explained why WP is not worse than ED.

I have explained why it is.  Firstly, both WP and ED
will attack you for even asking harmful material to be
removed.  WP attacks you seriously, whereas ED...
well, no one in their right mind would take ED seriously.

ED has made me throw up.  WP has caused serious
damage to my liver.