Let me first thank Emperor for re*currently re*calling back to mind again — one more time — a much be*deviled issue that persists in being sorely mis*understood hereabouts.
This being the Meta-Pulpit, my task is to sermonize not on the particular, peculiar variations of the day but on the generic, generative theme that over-arches and under-girds them all.
So let me now venture to sift the Archetypes from the Clichés in the following sample of dialogue —
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 4th August 2008, 1:50pm)
This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Mon 4th August 2008, 10:10pm
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 4th August 2008, 12:56pm)
The stuff with Kohs has me thinking, why does anyone go to Wikipedia? Especially if you are outraged at everything Jimbo and the administrators do.
I think that these incessant raids on Wikipedia actually reflect badly on Wikipedia Review and the people who participate here, even though many (most?) of us leave Wikipedia alone.
glad you asked that question, because I've only answered it about 10³ times in the last 2 years, so maybe this time you'll be porting the answer directly into your little grey cells.10³+1 …
Try to take an "Objective" view of Wikipedia. NO, I don't mean some Randroid species of Naive Objectivism (NO) — I mean nothing more than to regard Wikipedia as an Object, that is, an external object, not some hunk of your personal anatomy or sole inspiration that you just can't seem to find a way to Live Without.
Viewed as an Object, a Soctech Socware Object, then, what can you say, with all due critical reflection, about this Object?
And what brand of action does your critical reflection impell you to?
Now, I am painfully aware that even trying
to think about taking an Object View Of Wikipedia (OVOW)
amounts to a Burdensome, Odious, Mentally Intolerable Strain (BOMIS)
for Some People, so I will give you all a while to mull the exorcise over.