Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Traditionally, though, the problem has been
underestimated. One need not
adopt the language of "regulatory capture", as David Gerard does, to
look the issues in the eye:
Ah, but that you do now look such things in the eye - is it not due in
some large part to David's insightful if not directly relevant choice
of conceptualization?
(1) There is actually no substantive consensus
position that uncivil
editors are a net negative to the site;
Are there any data on this - whether or not Wikipedia has a shortage
of *dicks,* and whether efforts to enlist more might improve overall
reliability?
- Stevertigo