This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
After comments and emails from a number of 'true' Wikipedians I have come to the conclusion that perhaps the more extreme of us are right: Wikipedia cannot be redeemed. It's not Arbcom, it's not 'Jimbo' it's not the system. It's that the majority of the 'community' are barking mad and are simply not normal people. They need to be hospitalised and cared for, and the place should be blown up and destroyed.
I have some ideas of my own about how this could be achieved in a humane and decent way, but interested in the views of others.
Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.
HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.
Peter Damian, bravely standing against Wiki-authoritarianism.
HAHAHA. No one is stopping him from leaving, if he doesn't like how things are done. It is he who is continuing to stay, and the only person causing problems is him. Don't make the man out to be a martyr when he's nothing of the sort.
I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,017
Joined:
Member No.: 867
QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:41pm)
I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...
Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined:
Member No.: 7,214
QUOTE(Alex @ Sun 28th June 2009, 3:43pm)
QUOTE(Tarc @ Sun 28th June 2009, 4:41pm)
I made it ambiguous enough so it could be read as either supportive or sarcastic, so everyone can be happy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) My personal take isn't terribly important, but seeing how I thought dougstech was a drama-whoring jackass...
Ah... then I have to agree with you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) There's not much of a better word to describe people who vote on RFA for attention and drama purposes.
Which is exactly what Damian's doing in opposing and linking here. Surely he realises his participation makes no difference, and serves only to piss everyone off, but he does it anyway. Trolling. Inflaming. Understand what trolling is now, Damian?