QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 17th November 2008, 10:54am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
Agree/disagree? Which of the other candidates falls into which camp?
The whole thing is absurd.
What matters is the
CONTENT and how Wikipedia, and "Wikipedians", are dealing with that
CONTENT.
The interpersonal stuff - all the bannings and blocks and scraps and hypocrisy - can be an interesting sideshow and can act as a
Soap Opera worth watching on occasion, but it is the product of the "dysfunctional social network" and has little to do with the stuff kids bring up on their google searches.
That's why some of Lar's questions were interesting to me. Because they addressed BLP issues, Flagged revisions, and hinted of WPs inevitable failure of "reaching a consensus" to move forward with these serious problems. Another crucial question asked whether people supported editor unaccountability / anonymity, and why? Lar's questions can be used as a survey to ascertain whether long term Wikipedos had learned anything over the past 3 years or so, and whether they are prepared to change, move forward, or at least set an example?
All that blather about
those nasty arbcom members, IRC, Giano, and those endless scraps between drama queens,and the feuds over their blocks and bans, is actually getting in the way of WP addressing these core issues. The elections themselves are a farcical irrelevant nonsense; merely shifting deckchairs on The Titanic.