Changes

Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)

Revision as of 14:26, 12 October 2008

1,451 bytes added , 14:26, 12 October 2008

→‎Peccadildonic Pastimes

Line 128: Line 128:

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

+

:I agree with you wholeheartedly about the disputes issues. However, the history of Wikipedia Review is that primarily the major arguments were caused by people who came to Wikipedia Review either to destroy Wikipedia Review or to try to prevent Wikipedia Review criticising anything. In other words, to resolve this is mind-bogglingly simple: simply do not allow anyone to come to the site if they are against the aims of the site! Don't allow any Wikipedia administrators, period. If anyone comes on at all who is saying that Wikipedia is perfect, get rid of them! At times in WR's history when Wikipedia administrators/Wikipedia fanbois/people trying to destroy the site were either gone or else were in hiding, the site had a lot less arguments, and was a lot more heading towards something good. The point of a site shouldn't be to spend 90% of its time trying to discuss the site itself, rather it should be focussed on its own aims. If you look through these things, you will find that it is not "banned users" or any kind of pro-WR people that were causing the problems, but rather it was Wikipedia administrators and other vehemently pro-Wikipedia people that were just trying to muddy the waters. Don't allow Wikipedia admins and/or pro-Wikipedia people and the site is a lot less about analysing itself, a lot less destructive fighting, and a lot more about the real issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 07:26, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==

Blissyu2

95

edits