Everybody’s reaction to Wikipedia has gotten warmer over time, as Wikipedia’s earned credibility Options

[Jon Awbrey]

You misspieled “arachnerd” …

Jon

[Milton Roe]

...Sue can frankly stick it up her arachnid ass until that moment she accepts that comment off of moderation.

I think Charlotte Webb is going to be shocked at this particular vulgarity.

Is this like wiping your ass with silk, as I've heard from the Merovingian?

No, not the Meringue-ian.

[Moulton]

Barry Kort

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

August 9, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Sue, I can see from the serial numbers of the comments that you have released 11 of 45* comments here.

For the benefit of those respondents who are perplexed as to your criteria for selecting which comments to release from moderation, would you be kind enough to outline your criteria?

* Upon posting, I find the serial number has increased by 4, so Sue had actually released 11 of 49 comments (excluding the 2 of her own).

[Jon Awbrey]

Barry Kort

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

August 9, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Sue, I can see from the serial numbers of the comments that you have released 11 of 45* comments here.

For the benefit of those respondents who are perplexed as to your criteria for selecting which comments to release from moderation, would you be kind enough to outline your criteria?

* Upon posting, I find the serial number has increased by 4, so Sue had actually released 11 of 49 comments (excluding the 2 of her own).

Silly Rabbit, it's “the blog where anyone can comment”.

Jon Awbrey says:
(Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
August 9, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Not to worry, Barry, they’re working on an oversight button as we speak.

Well, as some of us speak.

Jon

[thekohser]

"Bodnotbod" left a comment:

I write here as someone who intends to put in 35 to 40 hours a week on Wikipedia work. I’m a recovering alcoholic and I am disabled to an extent that prevents me from taking on employment.

Has the guy never heard of Guru.com, or Freelancer.com, or even Amazon Mechanical Turk?

[Jon Awbrey]

"Bodnotbod" left a comment:

I write here as someone who intends to put in 35 to 40 hours a week on Wikipedia work. I’m a recovering alcoholic and I am disabled to an extent that prevents me from taking on employment.

Has the guy never heard of Guru.com, or Freelancer.com, or even Amazon Mechanical Turk?

Welcome to Da Cube, 16 of 65.

[Jon Awbrey]

Responding to some BS by Sage …

And some ranker BS by Sue Gardner …

“I approve the majority”

20 out of 85 is a WP:MAJORITY.

Jon Awbrey
(Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
August 18, 2010 at 11:45 AM

That’s okay, we’re starting a special subforum at The Wikipedia Review dedicated to the blog posts by our members that are WP:CENSORED here.

[Moulton]

20 out of 85 is a WP:MAJORITY.

In the interest of Fairness in Statistics, please note that the scope of the serial numbers is the whole blog site since its inception; they do not reset for each new post. So over the scope of her blog, Sue has released 66 of 85 posts, which (according to my math) is a 78% supermajority.

Sue writes:

I approve everything that I think adds value to the discussion. In general, I think about the signal-to-noise ratio: I want to create a space that’s conducive to thoughtful conversation :-)

I have to agree with Sue that some of the posts that did not pass muster were plausibly rejected because they did not exemplify thoughtful additions to the conversation.

[Jon Awbrey]

20 out of 85 is a WP:MAJORITY.

In the interest of Fairness in Statistics, please note that the scope of the serial numbers is the whole blog site since its inception; they do not reset for each new post. So over the scope of her blog, Sue has released 66 of 85 posts, which (according to my math) is a 78% supermajority.

IDNKT, but thanks for the info.

Are you counting her own posts in the supermajority?

Jon

[Moulton]

Are you counting her own posts in the supermajority?

Jon

In the interest of both Accuracy and Fairness in Statistics, one should subtract from both the numerator and denominator the number of Sue's own comments.

Sue has added 17 of her own comments, so (excluding hers) the ratio should be (66 - 17) / (85 - 17) = 49 / 68 = 72%.

[Jon Awbrey]

Jon Awbrey
(Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
August 18, 2010 at 11:45 AM

That’s okay, we’re starting a special subforum at The Wikipedia Review dedicated to the blog posts by our members that are WP:CENSORED here.

On 3rd thought, that begins to look like a WR:BADIDEA.

At first Sue Gardner wrote such ludicrous things that I felt compelled to reply — as if Local Color hadn't already taught us what a WP:Φlytrap that brand of Rediculosity™ will always be — but her blog degenerated into Hive Buzz so quickly that it's not really worth the candle to drop by there anymore, just like its 4bear, the WikiEnList.

Jon