John Bradley wrote:
It is strange that you can decide that one group of
editors is valuable to
wikipedia but not another.
Can you show me some data which demonstrates that the losses cause by
straight talking would exceed the saving acheived by some editor pruning?
or is this another case of assuming that the first idea that comes into your
head is right and fighting for it.
You'll also note that this is the first time Dave Gerard has responded to me
with anything other than msgs saying he will not talk with me.
Wikipedia welcomes anyone who contributes and follows policy. "Cite
sources", "no personal attacks" and "neutral point of view" sound
fairly
reasonable. Given that the role of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia,
the aim of an encyclopedia is to educate, and discussion can help to
educate, I think that just talking to people in a calm and sensible
manner is going to achieve a whole lot more than attacking them, because
if you can actually DISCUSS something, education will take place and the
issue will be resolved. Experts in a particular field may be frustrated
with having to put up with ignorant plebs, but if say "I am an expert in
(topic), the facts are (such and such)" AND provide some reference
material to back it up, you will be well-respected. Screaming "You
idiot! That's wrong!" will get nothing but frowns and shakes of the head.
PS. I advise against publishing your full name, address and phone number
in your email. This mailing list ends up in newsgroups, so if someone
takes an exception to what you say, you could be in serious personal danger.
--
Alphax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those
to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis