It occurs to me that it is possible that some may have mistaken my
disagreement with Larry about the state of the wikipedia might be
misunderstood as a disagreement with his basic position, with which I
have very little disagreement at all.
I fully support his efforts to find ways to raise the quality of
wikipedia, and to make it more hospitable to experts. The only thing
I disagree with him in is his evaluation of how that debate is going:
I think he's winning, and has the support of almost every regular --
in goal, if not in all aspects of methodology.
I don't think there's a single regular on this mailing list who would
disagree that low quality contributions are bad, or that we should
find ways to minimize the pain that serious contributors have in
dealing with people who are obnoxious, stupid, trying to be funny,
biased, etc.
There is disagreement on methodology, and varying degrees of support
(from *zero* to *considerable*) for a more extensive use of banning.
But even within that disagreement, there is broad support for some
general principles, such as that banning is both undesirable (because
it would be better to let the wasps just fly out the window) *and* an
unfortunate necessity at times.
I think things are going pretty well, and that slow change is a good
thing.
--Jimbo