Mon 27th February 2006, 3:29pm
I have just sent out invitations to a few people who I thought might be valid contributors to this forum. I sent out invitations to God of War (who is already posting here, but hey), Dschor and Andrew Orlowski, care of the "mail the author" at theregister.co.uk . Quite seriously, I think that we should invite each and every prominent critic of Wikipedia to come here, whether we agree with them or not. That means Sollog, Daniel Brandt, Aerethomy, the Quake Aid people and anyone else who has ever written a criticism.
Not all will come of course, but they have the option, and then we can perhaps turn this in to a forum that discusses and goes over individual criticisms. Perhaps also it might help the media, the people who are posting criticisms, be able to refer to this site as a help for them to get some stories together.
I know that a lot of people were reluctant to advertise before, but we had our advertisement-riddled free forum which could be shut down by ProBoards on a whim. Now we have something a bit more sturdy. So I think that now is the time to go advertising crazy. Get it as popular as we can, and see how we go. But not just popular - but as useful as it can be. I'd rather see 50 quality posters than 200 with 120 of them being trolls like was the case at the old forum. But we are going to have trolls no matter what we do. Let's just hope to keep them to a minimum.
Hopefully after all of this, we don't lose everything because of the events in the past few days. I have also written to invite Sannse to come here too.
Mon 27th February 2006, 6:13pm
Okay, I sent off invitations to everyone I could find off the Criticism of Wikipedia page. I got one response, from one Larry Sanger. I am sure he won't mind me posting it here:
Thanks for the invitation!
I can tell you one thing for damn sure. I certainly will never post to your
forum as long as you allow Lir to be posting to it. He/She is one of the
reasons Wikipedia went to hell in 2002.
I'll leave it at that
I still think Larry should post though, regardless. I suggested he could use another name though if he is worried.
Mon 27th February 2006, 9:22pm
I got this bit from Larry Sanger too. Its a partial quote, since he also got a bit angry at me daring to dispute his Neutral Point of View policy. I didn't realise it was his idea! Wikipedia doesn't say it is! LOL.
"You haven't seen the neutrality policy in action, because it hasn't been
enforced--that's my point. There are a differences between what the policy says, your understanding of what it says, and the degree to which it does either what the policy says or what you think it says. My point is that the policy, as I originally intended it when I wrote it, is an excellent idea
and needs to be tried; but this will require actual enforcement."
So according to Sanger, NPOV is great, its just never been enforced. But why not? Surely there's some fault, either with NPOV or with the structure of Wikipedia that means that it hasn't been enforced. And of course the page on NPOV is an impossibility too.
And I'd also like to add this bit:
"Fred Bauder is a crank, and frankly another person who made Wikipedia worse."
It seems that our Larry Sanger is a bit biased himself.
He really should post here, but hey, quoting him is fine too.
Mon 27th February 2006, 9:42pm
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Mon 27th February 2006, 12:13pm)
I can tell you one thing for damn sure. I certainly will never post to your forum as long as you allow Lir to be posting to it. He/She is one of the reasons Wikipedia went to hell in 2002.
Larry sounds bitter.
Tue 28th February 2006, 6:31am
QUOTE(Lir @ Tue 28th February 2006, 7:12am)
Larry sounds bitter.
I was somewhat amused. I mean I had never talked to him before, yet he is talking to me like that? It almost gives the impression that to him Wikipedia = Wikipedia politics and nothing more.