OK, Obi-wan. You're starting to make me suspicious. What do you always ask exactly what I think are the right questions? Own up. Either way, you did not answer my question directly, and I also suspect you know it. "Does this mean that WPO is not useful to you?" But you did answer it indirectly. So you get an even more direct question in return: Why make it obvious that you know a lot about Wikipedia, without telling us that you find it useful when you are a very direct person otherwise? For one, you are calling them out on the most inconvenient of all questions for them. If you don't mind, I'm going to take this straight to the source: WPO peeps, what the dealio? I've asked people on WP to put up or shut up. I've asked the WMF to walk their talk. In fact, I've staked my rep several times now, and I'm not done yet. Now I'm asking you, why don't you stop whining for once and show people you can actually do better? On-wiki or off-, Obi-wan certainly isn't the first to question your self-righteous assertions on how to build an online encyclopedia better than Wikipedia. I, for one, have been wondering for a while now. So, let's see what you can do besides making snarky, personal comments. Here's a pot, and here's a kettle. Need I mention what color they are?
Onwards with Obi-wan's points. I don't believe in nasty people. Deciding anyone is bad, nasty, etc. has only one purpose; one can feel better about being bad, nasty, etc. to people they've so judged. I don't think this is particularly productive. In fact, IMO it is unbelievably destructive once someone decides- or, more often, others have convinced them- that they themselves are bad people. We could talk about this more in another thread, but we've got to get back on topic here, so. . . You know that the Wikipediocrats are smart. You have spent more time there than you're willing to admit directly. I immediately wonder if it's just in reading or in writing, too. ) They are indeed among the smartest in the WP community reasoning-wise that I've met so far. But emotionally. . . less than average. How do you think many of these smart m'er f'ers ended up getting indef blocked or banned? A lot of them fell from grace, not because they weren't an asset to the community, but because they didn't seem to know when- or they were completely unwilling- to stop fighting for what they saw as justice. That's one part of the answer; many of them are banned or blocked- whether rightly so or not- from editing on Wikipedia. Also, it's normal for someone who has been banished to tell themselves they wish harm on their homeland, while still keeping a great emotional investment in it. You'll hear the same people spout their disdain for Wikipedia almost in the same breath as suggestion to improve it. Frankly, we could speculate about these people's motives and methods til the sun goes down. Let's be more practical about what is best for Wikipedia here. What we, as a Wikipedia community, can't do is ignore them away. And, even if we could, we're doing a piss-poor job of it, because I almost always hear about what's been said on Wikipediocracy from a Wikipedian before I go to the actual site. Ultimately, I go back to my old standard: I don't give a shit where these people come from or what their motives are; all's I know is that they are saying something interesting, and I appreciate the fact that I don't have to gloss over a bunch of posts that are trying to get them to shut up as I read it. Obi-wan, no use playing coy. You know exactly what I'm talking about. D