QUOTE(MZMcBride @ Thu 19th November 2009, 10:26am)
This is likely (hell, it is) a topic for another thread / discussion area, but I'm curious what your analysis is of those who post on this site regularly. Of course it could be awkward and far too meta to post those thoughts here, but I'd still be interested in them. For all the neuroses and quirks of Wikipedia's contributors, I've found that the people who spend a measurable amount of time solely criticizing Wikipedia are far more interesting. Your mileage may vary, of course. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
If you've followed my posts, you'd be quite aware that I have no problem in seeing WR's posters as a pretty entertaining bunch of characters in both the best and worse senses of that (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
What is interesting is that I can rationalise the membership here - they have a selection of identifiable motives - some laudable, some not.
However, in the end, WR is a little gnat nibbling at the sensitive parts of Wikipedia, hoping that one bite may one day cause a serious infection. Wikipedia is a global phenomenon impacting on the daily lives of most users of teh Interweb - AND - on a significant number of people who have been entrapped into deeper involvement.
On that second point, it is interesting that here on WR that deeper involvement generally seems to result in a tendency to the odd rant and pointless argument and a general waste of time. On Wikipedia, deeper involvement seems to point to a dislocation from reality, where discussions on Wiki suggest that editors become embedded in an alternative world of values, and that they then take those values out into the wider world.
So although a deeper introspection on the workings of WR may be entertaining, the real value is looking at Wikipedia.