QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 2nd March 2007, 11:35pm)
Somey, that was a brilliant summary. I guess it pays to be a teetotaler. I'm too drunk to do something like that. I start drinking cheap Schlitz Malt when I get too worked up over Wikipedia.
I hate to say this, I really do, but I have to put my faith in users such as thebainer, SlimVirgin and Michael Snow to come up with some trick to torpedo this latest atrocity. They all have indicated strong opposition in various ways. I think -- I pray to God even though I'm an atheist -- that they're up to something.
God help me, I appeal to SlimVirgin to kick some butt on this one. Have I gone to the dogs, or are things so bad that Slim's flesh-eating poodle is the only hope for any of us?
Speaking from the higher plane of a mighty toasty cabernet, I think that we focus way too much on getting Wikipedia to do this or that. That ship has sailed, and no amount of screaming about the icebergs is going to wake the captain or crew. The soluble matter is not to be found in the substance of what Wikipedia is. What it is is something that the Usenet, large parts of the Internet, and your daily mailbog from Nigeria is already chock full of, speaking of coffee, but nobody pays much attention to it — except when it's time to update their spam and virus filters so as to automate the dumping of it. The problem is just What Wikipedia Is Not, What Wikipedia Will Never Be, but What Wikipedia Only Pretends To Be, that is, an encyclopedia, and the fact that not enough people have gotten wise to the scam — yet.
But the news is getting out.
When we have induced the Creature from the Blecchhh Lagoon to slither back into the Usenet Scum of Inhuman Witlessness from which it arose, then our problem will be managed as well as we can hope — at least until they dredge up the sequel.
Jonny (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)
This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: