QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 24th March 2009, 11:51pm)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 24th March 2009, 11:44pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 24th March 2009, 11:34pm)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 24th March 2009, 11:27pm)
I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.
I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.
Good point. I remember being rather puzzled by that "personal attacks" policy, and to a large extent I still am, as must be obvious to any wikiafficionado. I mean, calling someone who is behaving like an idiot an idiot is just making an observation. It's a personal remark, sure, but an "attack"? If it was in my mind to attack someone I could do an awful lot better than that. Trust me. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
I don't know what you guys are relating to, but call someone an "idiot" in a professional environment and you're in trouble.
You've obviously never been an academic. Or in the services.
QUOTE(Alex @ Wed 25th March 2009, 12:02am)
What happens on Wikipedia are personal remarks (or attacks, it's all the same really) ...
So you really believe that personal remark is synonymous with personal attack do you?
"I think you were a wonderful administrator, and I was gutted when you were forced to step down from your position by a few vindictive souls."
"I think you were a crap administrator, and I cheered the day you were forced to resign from your position."
Both are personal remarks, but you only object to the personal remark that you don't like. Is that altogether honest? Ever heard of Rudyard Kipling?
This post has been edited by Malleus: