Re: A nice soothing, relaxing cup of tea
- I agree with you Rupert.....
Mike, I am not sure what to say, I could go to the site and
vote "something" and maybe I will but the thing I wonder about
is "will it matter?" Verdi voted and got called a "Meat" something?
what the hell is that? It sounds like to me that there are some
serious flaws within the wikipidia system.....a system that seems to
disreguard someone if they are not a regular "contributor"....I don't
agree with that completly but I can understand it to a degree but if
that is the case will my vote really matter? I know it matters to
you and me, but will wikipidia give a damn? I don't think so. And
that is what is sad...because at the end of the day if nothing
happens then nothing has changed....
I don't know, I don't know what is right here. I don't like one
person being the "gatekeeper" which is what Pat is at this point. It
goes against everything I believe....I'm at work and I "should" be
doing something else so I am going to go for now.....
I don't know...I just don't know...
--- In email@example.com, "Rupert Howe" <rupert@...>
> I unsubscribed a couple of days ago for a breather. I've always
> to be cautious of heated discussions in groups because they're sowriting
> seductive - soon you're caught up in the lynch mob feeling and
> stuff you regret later, which is what happened to me this time.Also,
> I'm quarantined and stuck in the house alone and going stir crazy,so
> reading all this stuff was not too healthy and my mind wasn't clear.everyone
> Coming back for a quick view on the web, it seems to me that
> is a bit right. Patrick Delongchamp had been overzealous, and couldhard
> have just earmarked stuff for editing rather than delete people's
> work so relentlessly. Maybe, as Elbows says, he was technicallyleft
> within the rules to do so because of sources. His style, though,
> something to be desired.messier
> Which is why I thought a ban would be unlikely and make things
> - which appears to be the case now. That's why what I firstproposed
> (before i got too worked up) was just encouraging a show of strengthagainst
> by having lots of people contribute keep the deletions at bay.
> Which is what Wikipedia's about - achieving a balanced, efficient
> market by reaching a critical mass of contributors. Not a few
> a few.they
> However, something needs to change in order for people to feel
> comfortable contributing to the Wikipedia entry... which clearly
> don't now - despite the strong words here, there's no editing ofthe
> article going on.of
> I don't think this is a failure to support you, Mike, so really
> *don't* leave, please - I love your posts here. It's just a sense
> What's The Point, I reckon, and a fear/ennui of all the anger.here
> If Patrick will agree not to delete anything more, since there's an
> issue around his involvement, and if other people can contribute
> and there, then maybe we have a nice compromise and we can all havea
> nice soothing, relaxing cup of tea.here
> Really, I keep telling myself - beware the blood that rises in these
> 'liminal zones' like email and online groups - what you write is
> for ever and ever. I'm even wondering if I'll regret writingthis ;)
> And although it's upsetting to see Mike and Steve getting hectic,
> you're all friends really. What brought me back before the weekend
> was that people are talking on Twitter about unsubscribing. We
> afford to lose more people from this list. When it's good, it'svery
> I'll resubscribe when I'm feeling better. I like it here.