On 28 May 2012 08:45, Edward at Logic Museum <[email protected]> wrote: > Stepping back, it would seem extraordinary to a member of the general public > that any organisation whose purpose is the construction of a comprehensive > and reliable reference work should be banning specialist editors in the > first place.
We don't. We ban problematical editors. Specialism or otherwise is largely irrelevant. >The usual reply, that 'crowdsourcing' will take the place of > specialists, doesn't seem to work. I suppose attacking a position that bares no relation to a vaguely defined group's real position technical moves you outside of normal strawman territory but it still presents the same logical problems > I have pointed out some serious problems > with an article about one of Britain's most prominent and influential > philosophers, on this very forum, and the article hasn't improved in any way > since last week. Is this good PR for Wikipedia or Wikimedia? You wish to appeal to PR? Not entirely sure that is a good strategy. May I suggest appealing to Glycon? It has a better reputation and of course would help you to cultivate a geek chic appearence if you wanted to. > So I say it again: it's a matter of whether Wikipedia and Wikimedia 'can' > work with the system to improve articles. There is in fact a choice. I'm sorry are you under the impression you are "the system"? But aside from your rather meandering oddities the reality is that you have invested significant effort in attempting to disrupt the activities of wikimedia UK. This creates a trust problem to the point where it is rather hard to justify working with you on anything, -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
