On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM, George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Does an open content, liberal open encyclopedia sound like we'd be his > friend? > Well I agree that this guy was out to do harm, and that we cannot trust anything he says as being truthful. People will use radicals like this for pushing more controls and less freedom. On the other side, I think that wikipedia has a lot of work to do in cleaning up. warning, now comes my chip on the shoulder, you can skip this if you want. RANT BEGIN there are a great deal of inconsistencies on fringe topics (and i wont bore you with the name of my favorite topic right now, but you can guess) where both sides of the argument are equally twisted. there is a lack of experienced moderators and also the problem is that you dont want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So really I think for my favorite topics the neutrally is really lacking and radicals reign. this inspires more radicals and causes a total lack of trust in wikipedia on the other side of the POV. I have met people who think that wikipedia should be boycotted because they are seen to be supporting one side of the argument, and this is just because no one has the time to deal with the large number of organized radicals. I try to tell them that they can also get involved and make things better, but my personal experience in the wikihounding has also made me lose all interest in continued editing on some topics. How can I in good faith ask a total noob to walk in the lions den? RANT END thanks, mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
