3 ms·
Your argument is completely logically incoherent. It amounts to saying that the status quo is circularly self-justifying because... because... just because. Ha
by andrewjho 10y ago
Your argument is completely logically incoherent. It amounts to saying that the status quo is circularly self-justifying because... because... just because.
Have you considered, for instance, the possibility that relaxing the moderation (and -- yes -- allowing some real abusers to slip through the cracks) but dealing humanely with those who the admins can interact with would be better for Wikipedia on the whole? (Probably not.)
- intopieces 10y agoI haven't considered it because you haven't made a convincing case for me to do so. That Wikipedia has fewer volunteer editors does not in itself indicate a decline in quality. Maybe all the people that left were shitty editors. That you disagree with the way they handle enforcement of the rules you broke is not evidence of a deficient system, only that you don't like it. I have my own misgivings about wikipedia, but the post linked here doesn't mention any of them.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]