Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 685:
Line 685: + + + +
→SOME positive aspects of WP?: Wikipedia is a good idea, poorly managed
:A great idea! We'll call the former [[Wikipedia]] and the latter [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]! ...no, wait... ;)
:A great idea! We'll call the former [[Wikipedia]] and the latter [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]! ...no, wait... ;)
:Seriously, though, it's nice that a sysop finally (implicitly) admits that practically the entire article is just pointing out how bad WP is and that good/neutral info is so rare that it practically sticks out. This article is to Wikipedia what [[Theory of Evolution]] is to evolution: Little actual info, tons of preaching how it's bad and shouldn't be trusted. I fully support the idea of having an actual article about Wikipedia. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:Seriously, though, it's nice that a sysop finally (implicitly) admits that practically the entire article is just pointing out how bad WP is and that good/neutral info is so rare that it practically sticks out. This article is to Wikipedia what [[Theory of Evolution]] is to evolution: Little actual info, tons of preaching how it's bad and shouldn't be trusted. I fully support the idea of having an actual article about Wikipedia. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
::Finally? I've been saying so all along. Remember, I'm still on the Mediation Committee at Wikipedia. And I used to be a senior admin until the inmates took over the asylum.
::Wikipedia is a good idea, poorly managed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:32, 12 October 2007 (EDT)