Which bits did you feel were selective, i.e. which parts of your original meaning were changed by quoting sentence fragments? I mean you did actually say that the criticism on WO "has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing". You then followed that up, and here I quote the whole sentence "By their obsession over nits and trying to find things to hold against the projects and their participants, they necessarily will uncover things that need fixing".
It's not clear whether you agree that WO criticism has uncovered some serious problems, in which case that's a good thing, regardless of motivation, or whether the problems aren't serious, as is implied by your term 'nits' (small creatures that are trivial in the grand scheme of things). In the same post you then refer to "the numerous much larger, much more complicated and much more *important* things that need fixing", which implies the 'serious problems that desperately needed fixing' are not so serious.
I also noted that one of the 'more important' things you refer to was also a strong focus for WO, namely the gaming by paid editors and suchlike, i.e. you suggested that WO isn't focused on such things, whereas in fact they are. To my mind, conflict of interest (financial, agenda-driven, nationalistic and, yes, editing by pedophiles), is the most serious problem facing the project.
On 24/05/2014 16:30, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote:
You mean "selectively quoting"? I was not aware of misquoting you. I used your very words.
Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then. I could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments is, necessarily, "misquoting" but this was a simple production error -- having both 'selectively quoting' and 'misquoting' in mind I ended up writing halfway between both.
-- Mar