![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
mbz1 |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 461 Joined: Member No.: 25,791 ![]() |
I find this comment interesting:
QUOTE If I was the boss of a company, I wouldn't fire my best employee for pissing off everyone else, especially if he or she actually gets shit done. Let's face it: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than five admins. Why not let Malleus have immunity because of his usefulness? Is calling someone a cunt (even if regularly done over several years) that bad, considering this is the Internet? If someone leaves Wikipedia "because" of Malleus, it's their choice. Fetchcomms is mistaking: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than at least a hundred admins, probably more, but does it mean Malleus and other valued editors should be treated differently than not so valued, but good faith editors? I have no answer to this question, but I would like to hear what others think about this matter. Thanks. This post has been edited by mbz1: |
![]() ![]() |
Ottava |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Ãœber Pokemon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,917 Joined: Member No.: 7,328 ![]() |
People who don't work on the encyclopedia have no business there. That should be rule number one and, if enforced, 80% of the people would be instantly banned and the rest would be sorted out.
|
Malleus |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 1,682 Joined: From: United Kingdom Member No.: 8,716 ![]() |
People who don't work on the encyclopedia have no business there. That should be rule number one and, if enforced, 80% of the people would be instantly banned and the rest would be sorted out. Dumping all the administrators and removing the God-king's rights would be a start, but that's obviously not going to happen any time soon. This post has been edited by Malleus: |
jd turk |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 183 Joined: Member No.: 5,976 ![]() |
Dumping all the administrators and removing the God-king's rights would be a start, but that's obviously not going to happen any time soon. And then what? "The police and government aren't doing enough to curb crime here in our town. Let's fire all of them." Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution. |
Kelly Martin |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Bring back the guttersnipes! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 3,270 Joined: From: EN61bw Member No.: 6,696 ![]() |
|
mbz1 |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 461 Joined: Member No.: 25,791 ![]() |
"The police and government aren't doing enough to curb crime here in our town. Let's fire all of them." Except that Wikipedia's administrators are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime".Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution. I could have lived with administrators that are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime". I cannot live with administrators who block valued contributors to satisfy the trolls and the hounds. |
Tarc |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,124 Joined: Member No.: 5,309 ![]() |
"The police and government aren't doing enough to curb crime here in our town. Let's fire all of them." Except that Wikipedia's administrators are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime".Until Wikipedia gets a Batman, that's not a solution. I could have lived with administrators that are not particularly much involved in "stopping crime". I cannot live with administrators who block valued contributors to satisfy the trolls and the hounds. What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds? |
Wikifan |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 204 Joined: Member No.: 26,203 ![]() |
QUOTE What about when valued contributors are also trolls and hounds? this. secondly, who the hell is Malleus? And if he is such an awesome fuck, can his contributions be enumerated (mathematically) to show he is actually more valuable than a dozen or a "hundred" admins? Seems very hyperbolic. Difficult to edit when users create a climate of hostility, and calling another user a cunt is pathetic. I imagine that person banging their head on the keyboard in a fit of rage. wikipedia isn't going anywhere. if you can't deal with some internet asshole without using profanity against the rules then perhaps you should consider doing something else with your time. |
melloden |
![]()
Post
#9
|
. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 450 Joined: Member No.: 34,482 ![]() |
wikipedia isn't going anywhere. if you can't deal with some internet asshole without using profanity against the rules then perhaps you should consider doing something else with your time. You assume that profanity is bad. Some people use the term "cunt" often and very loosely, and to them it might not be much more than "bastard" or "dumbass" or whatever people call each other these days. Just because Malleus thinks someone is a cunt doesn't mean he's bashing his head into a keyboard out of frustration. It's difficult to do a lot of things when users create a of hostility, but that can't always be bad, otherwise, why does WR bother existing? |
jd turk |
![]()
Post
#10
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 183 Joined: Member No.: 5,976 ![]() |
You assume that profanity is bad. Some people use the term "cunt" often and very loosely, and to them it might not be much more than "bastard" or "dumbass" or whatever people call each other these days. Just because Malleus thinks someone is a cunt doesn't mean he's bashing his head into a keyboard out of frustration. I see this line of reasoning on WP used as well, and no offense, but it makes no sense. Malleus used words he knew would be inflammatory. Whether it's "cunt," or "asshole," or "Cubs fan," or whatever, he used it knowing full well it would be taken in an aggressive manner. And when it was pointed out to him it could be taken that way, I don't recall seeing any kind of apology. If I missed it I apologize, but all I've seen is basically "it doesn't mean what you think it does, so fuck off, cunts." Whatever the word used happened to be, it was used for a certain purpose and there doesn't seem to be any regret it was taken in a hateful manner. Disagreement over the exact connotation of the term doesn't excuse the intent, or the lack of regret if it was taken incorrectly. It's all a part of the "Valued Content Contributors Circle of Drama." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |