Wikipedia talk:Just write a damn encyclopedia

message: What you seem to be proposing is to take a stand against everyone.  Because...
It doesn't take an elistist to be a deletist.  Anyone can nominate any article for deletion.  The problem has more to do with systemic bias than it has to do with some special or differentiated group lording their power over the rest of us.  Great power, in terms of the program functions and community privileges granted to every user of Wikipedia is substantial, and includes editing (adding to or removing material from pages), creating pages, renaming pages, redirecting, merging, making nominations (deletion, adminship, etc.), presenting proposals, forming departments, writing guidelines and new policies, and more.  
But, if you take advantage of the additional tools provided on and off of Wikipedia (programs, macros, applets, scripts, bots, toolbars, tips, etc.), which are available to almost everyone, then you can amplify your power on Wikipedia by at least a magnitude. 
So there is no such thing as a "common Jew".  We are all elitists in terms of the tools and opportunities available to us.
And Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy, nor is it a democracy.  It is in fact a sociocracy incubated within the jurisdiction of a benign dictatorship which itself is incubated within the bounds of a representative democracy (a form of republic).  Wikipedia simply would not exist if it were not for the latter two umbrellas of protection (Jimbo Wales and the United States of America).  Be thankful for this wonderful creation that they have made possible.
We passed the million-articles milestone early this year, and we are rapidly approaching the 1.5 million articles milestone already.  So the red tape and deletions of which you speak don't seem to be hampering Wikipedia's development much at all.  Wikipedia is growing faster than ever before.
It seems like everyone is already taking a stand, and are in fact building an encyclopedia!
--The Transhumanist 09:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you lack vision, you are blind 

message: What actions in particular are you proposing? Your writing is strong, but I don't see a strong proposal. Instead, you lodge a few complaints, and follow with a generic call-to-arms. Everyone wants to "write a damn encyclopedia". How do you propose to make this happen? Λυδαcιτγ 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particulars 

message: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book was totally anarchist in the way in which it was written.  Writers (Ford) would take bribes to write a biased, sometimes inaccurate encyclopedia.  And while the book's administration had few rules about how the book was to be written, it was still phenominally successful--moreso than the Encyclopedia Galactica!  I wish there weren't so many rules and stuff here.  It was only just today that a nomination for the deletion of an article I've worked hard on caused me to become an eventualistic inclusionist Wikipedian.  I'm tired of all the deletion and the incredibly vague definition of "notability".  --Brandon Dilbeck 05:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone were altruistic like you, Wikipedia would have no rules. And yes, notability hurts. 64.90.198.6 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Translation: "I was all for the rules until those filthy bastards touched my sacred article!!"   Ravenswing   23:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like the Hitchhiker's Guide! 

message: As I posted on the Village Pump, people are going nuts with all the rules. Focus more on getting the facts straight! I totally agree with you.  aido2002 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You're Right