QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sun 7th June 2009, 10:14am)
The recent inflush of pseudencyclopædiots to our commodious vicinitudes is currently generating ever more effluvious volumes of That Which Affects To Care About Critical Knowledge (WP:TWATCACK)
than The Wikipedia Review
has ever had to sift before.
The time is then ripe — overripe I say — to solve and coagulate from the e-maelstrom of encroaching mire the more recurrent rimes of non-sense that threaten to engulf our critical faculties with the drone of their unyielding irrationality.
Hard to know what to do. The problem is that a very significant number of the "users" of WR are either outright pro-Wikipedians here to sabotage critique or have such a watered down notion of what "critique"ought to consist of that they might as well be here to sabotage the place. In the past this has been addressed by cyclical confrontations of the pro-Wkipedians by the "hardliners" and serious critics in which the pro-Wikipedians have been more or less put down. But there is no denying that with each cycle the influx of pro-Wikipedians increases and there is certainly no guarantee that they won't eventually overwhelm the place once and for all.
In any event more or less serious criticism has had a good run on the review and I'm certainly grateful for having had the chance to learn from the likes of yourself, Brandt, Kato, Kelly, even Moulton on a good day, as well as the current staff/mods and those pro-Wikipedians of good faith who have engaged in debate on an honest level.
Hell Ya, you're either with us or you're against us, isn't that right GlassBeadGame. I think it's definately time to start drawing up lists.