> That said, one should not be surprised if his opinion is > marginalized if he simultaneously complains and refuses to be > engaged in the solution...
I tried the wiki for a period of several days, writing several contributions. But when my edits were all deleted because they didn't fit one other person's idea of a NANOG wiki, I walked away. Who needs that aggravation? I don't believe in following the crowd and protecting the status quo. And I don't believe that it does NANOG any good to enforce the whacko cutesy narrowminded behavior of a certain vocal minority. Running big internetworks is serious business and seriously complex. Flippant banter doesn't help people learn what they need to know in order to scale their networks. There should be less black and white, less demonization and sainthood on this list. There are 10,000 or more people on the NANOG list, and given the tiny percentage that write postings, it seems to me that the number one goal of those people is LEARNING. That's why organizations like Wikipedia (for whom I have written and edited articles) have developed their NPOV (neutral point of view) policy along with clarity and other things. It helps make written material more useful for learning. > I'm not on the SC and obviously don't speak for them, but I > believe the cluepon wiki is generally considered by the SC > members jointly and severally to be a good example of > community involvement and people stepping up and doing the > Right Thing. Maybe it has changed since when I was there, but I've lost interest. If anyone thinks any of my list postings are useful, they will copy some of the content to the wiki. > I can point to the lack of any serious > proposals for in-housing the wiki as supporting evidence. Apathy is not a vote of confidence. --Michael Dillon
