[WikiEN-l] Reply to the April Fools Day comments

Fri Apr 1 03:26:25 UTC 2005

/Raul's categorization of this as a disagreement 
between a mob and a group of respected editors is wishful thinking. -- SJ

/A lie - I never anything of the sort. Please don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I think
Danny nailed it when he said the split in the community is between the people who think 
the encyclopedia aspect comes first and those who think the social aspect comes first. 

/Raul, you should have posted to this list about your decision about
the FA tomorrow: that is, to ignore the recent poll... -- SJ
/
I did one better than that, I posted my reasoning in a clearly marked section RIGHT BELOW THE POLL. 
*And* my edit summary when I wrote the NES blurb was a link to the explanation. I did everything but 
set up flashing neon signs pointing to it. But of course, you already knew all that, because you've 
already responded to my comments there. 

As far as ignoring the poll, this is yet another outright lie. I went with the 2nd highest rated poll 
option (do nothing - e.g., a standard featured article) because, after asking everyone and his mother 
for input (including the mailing list and Jimbo by name), I decided the first option did not meet the 
one criteria of being the "daily featured article" - that is, it's not a featured article. And, the 
article I did pick fulfilled Mav's secondary request that it be "fun". That's quite a lot of 
attention to be paying to a poll I was ignoring. 

Or, to put it another way -- the community was split with about 2/3's in favor of one option and 
1/3 vociferously against it. Either way, one group was going to be pissed (at me). Jimbo's comments 
weren't exactly decisive either, although they did push me in the serious-article direction. 
Don't you just love no win situations? 

/"it reflects the fact that Wikipedia EN is overpopulated by geeky teenagers who probably 
prefer Red Bull to red wine and Game Boys to sex."/  --Viajero, aka Just Another Dinosaur

Hrmmm, where have I heard this before? Oh yes! This was the same rant that Xed always made (and 
those of us who actually pay attention to what is happening on wikipedia - admittedly few on 
this mailing list these days, as SJ's why-did't-you-post-it-here? comment shows - we remember 
just how wonderful and friendly he was). But all the same, I'll be sure to pass along your
holier-than-thou sentiments to all the contributors who you've just insulted. I may not be the 
"eminent worthiness" you label me as, but I'm sure the people you've stereotyped will appreciate your 
comments just as much I did. 

But on a more general note, this whole experience has left me thoroughly disgusted. The purpose of 
this was to encourage people to write featured articles on quirky subjects. I said I'd go 
with what the community decided, provided it met that tremendous, burdensome requirement of 
being true. Silly me, what the hell was I thinking? An encyclopedia with true facts? Who ever heard
of such a thing? Of course, I do wonder - with all the time people have wasted bitching about how 
terrible the process was, distorting facts and/or lying (SJ), and making personal attacks (Viajero), 
just how many new featured articles could have been generated? 

Just some food for thought... 
--Mark