QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 4th November 2010, 10:35pm)
Another fascinating discussion going on here:
http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikip...blosxomCommentsReagle is blocking my (quite harmless) comments again. Can't he see how this damages his case?
What does he mean by "mean kids site"? Do you think wikipediareview.com is a "mean kids site" rather than, say, the "kewl kids site"? Actually, I thought we were the grownups. Ha.
If Joseph Reagle, Jnr is honestly writing stuff inferring wikipediareview.com etc a "mean kids site", the guy has pricked out entirely ... I cannot believe. Is he selling himself as the King of the Weenies, Defender of the Faith, Champine of the Wiki-peedia, or something.
"Look at me, I'm a victim too, watch me call them names back, and you can too! (Buy my book).".
The guy bullshat on camera. The guy put up a lie in front of the faculty and guests hiding the truth and started throwing around insults. His book is a whitewash. It lacks rigor, integrity and depth. He knows it. We knows it. He knows we knows it.
And he has not the balls to come on to an open forum where neither he nor his ilk can censor and block in order to defend it their ideas.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 4th November 2010, 11:53pm)
Wikipedia's internal use of "troll" is idiosyncratic; at Wikipedia a "troll" is anyone who refuses to quietly accept the "consensus" decreed by Wikipedia's elites.
Support - except it is hardly an "elite". More than often it boils down to 3 or 4 of the usual ANI clowns 99.9% of other reasonable admins keeping well out of it so as to avoid incurring future vindictive wrath.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: