Encyclopedist, I would like to ask you, if, when you supported Gwen's RFA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...hip/Gwen_Gale_2 were you aware about these statements of her made by one of her other accounts
WyssÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
?
QUOTE
I'd also suggest that the wanton enabling of trolls and fools on Wikipedia gives the petty cyber-castle builders endless excuses to waste time on them with RfArs, RfCs, mentor committees, IRC watchlist feeds, loopy talk page discussions/scoldings, insincere civility patrols and other process-oriented, attention-getting stuff they think will help them get elected to roles in the bureaucracy... anything to avoid true volunteer work, the writing of an encyclopedia founded on scholarly principles. Wyss 18:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
QUOTE
I don't like the notion of wading through a cyber-waste dump of coddled trolls, fools and mob-think police to edit the 1% of articles most Wikipedians don't care about. Wyss 07:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
QUOTE
However, ridding WP of fools and trolls would eliminate (in my humble opinion) about 80% of the site's active user base along with at least half of its admins. I think Wales has known this for years and has his own reasons for not doing it. So what is Wikipedia truly efficient at?
If Wikipedia is so inefficient at generating quality content (hundreds, sometimes thousands of person-hours will wontedly result in a mediocre, unscholarly article), what is Wikipedia efficient at? Traffic is the name of the game, as is fame. Encyclopedia writing is not a mass market hook
Scholastically inclinced reference projects, while perhaps exciting to weird (grin) people like me, are in truth boring to most but without selectivity as to participating editors, WP's content will be driven by mob tyranny. Face it, half of all people are of below average cleverness, and many of the other half are either indifferent to volunteering their time to an academic project or shouldn't be trusted if they do express interest, since maybe half of them would come only as articulate hucksters. Worse, qualified people tend not to have a lot of spare time, so online projects like this risk attracting more than their share of tossers and impaired outcasts, even into its bureaucracy (or dominant clique) who themselves have not a clue how or why they are being used in the furtherance of non-encyclopedic goals. How's that for stark talking? Wyss 15:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
QUOTE
Once you've read Wikiruth, it's hard to think of Wikipedia as anything other than an autistic care ...
I mean, I understand people change, but the above was said not by a teenaged girl. It was written by 30 years old woman(no outting, info is taken from her bio written by herself on Wiki).
Her performance as an admin demonstrated she did not change.
This post has been edited by mbz1: