221:
ground of reasonable folk. It's really just rational self-interest - I really think that the job of defending
Knowledge's content against "undue weight" would be much easier if we could reach out and support people like you. Unfortunately, I never had the time, energy, or balls to go through with anything of the sort. Anyhow, sorry for rambling, but I just wanted to say that I've found you in the past to be a good editor, and I'm deeply sorry that the atmosphere here is what it is. I will also apologize for my part - I feel responsible on some level for not taking a more active role in improving the atmosphere. Best wishes.
209:... despite my attempt to back out of anything involving wikipolitics and process, I've been involved, at least tangentially, in the most recent ArbCom case relating to "fringe science". I saw your statement in the evidence section there. We haven't interacted much, particularly recently, but I just wanted to let you know that I've found you to be generally reasonable and a good editor (which is the best I could say about myself, on a good day). When I see the problems encountered by people like yourself and
213:- that is, people with practical experience in "non-mainstream" areas who make an effort to work within Knowledge's strictures - it greatly discourages me. There needs to be some sort of room on Knowledge for people who practice "alternative" or non-mainstream concepts, but are able to wear their Knowledge hats and be editors first. I'm concerned that in the present environment, there is no such room - everything is too polarized to admit any nuance.
272:
Thanks... it's become a very tiresome, obsessive-compulsive debate, with a couple of editors dug in strongly. It's weird how no one else seems to care that stuff was edit-warred onto that list without consensus. You and Fyslee, for example, know it was wrong, but you're cool with the result, so you
88:
I made the mistake of assuming this policy was taken seriously on WP. I've also come to see why it exists: writing an encyclopedia is an elevated endeavor, requiring a welcoming intellectual environment. Use of ad hominem, rudeness, and edit warring ruin that environment. They may help get rid of
301:
But it hasn't worked out that way. Admins and Arbs are significantly responsible for all this, but the buck stops with Jimbo Wales. You blew it. You let the ideal of consensus degenerate into a sort of slow-motion mob rule that has equated "NPOV" with "mainstream", and doesn't care about properly
153:
Dematt, I'm sorry, but if WP is sick, then CZ is dead. Or, to be charitable, on life support. The front page is messy and the interface is non-intuitive. Larry blew it; by failing to fork WP's articles completely, CZ became a backwater. It barely scratches the search engines (I posted an article
254:
True, but it is more amusing than a more reasonable example; hopefully I argued the nuances well enough in the rest of the section. If not, it appears to be no loss unless the arbiters change their minds. I think that the standard
Knowledge 'everything must be well sourced' requirement suffices for
233:
Thanks for that note. I really appreciate it, and I think your expert oversight idea is excellent. Don't feel too responsible for the present atmosphere; you're only one out of how many? I'm really burned out, and don't know whether sticking around is going to be a net positive experience. Good
220:
that the best way to improve our coverage of alternative-medicine articles would be to identify reasonable, quality editors with expertise in those areas - I had in mind people like you and Dematt - and support/co-opt them. The best bulwark against extremism of any flavor would be a strong middle
297:
It doesn't have to be this way. WP could have instituted expert oversight a long time ago, but has resisted, in its fetishization of egalitarianism. Incredibly, WP has instead tolerated abandonment of basic civility. This isn't usenet: it was supposed to be an elevated thing, something good,
92:
There is a better way: use normal means of dealing with trolls, stay civil, and use expert oversight to keep articls from drifting off track. Let a group of editors vert a "last good version" that is readily visible to readers, while the editing of provisional versions continues.
293:
There are some good people here (as is obvious from the comments above), but the overall editing environment is just too toxic. It's all about fighting, not sincere intellectual exchange, compromise and collaboration.
96:
So, I've stopped editing because the environment has become toxic, and nothing much is being done to stop it. So, ciao, and best of luck editing happily within the existing, and flawed, rules & lack thereof here.
255:
that article, you appear to prefer that it be made more explicit - I can live with that. Incidentally, I agree with MastCell above - there is a reason why
RationalWiki does not feature highly in most search engines. -
410:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
249:
154:
there last
Thanksgiving, and it's not in Google AT ALL, no matter what search terms I use). At best, if they grow slowly, they might turn out to be a sort of Alibris.com to WP's Amazon. see ya,
365:
Sorry to see you go. If it is any consolation, I think Fyslee and I may have agreed on plausible solution which could make everyone happy - we'll see though. There's a little
266:
351:
No, more just the nudge I needed. I thought I could help fix up that list, but it's too polarized, and I've been on the cusp of leaving for a long time. best,
189:
Thanks! Yeah man, I've been on the road to where good intentions lead for too long to turn around now. Â ;-) Hope your New Year brings peace and good times. --
89:
trolls, disruptors and hopelessly clueless people, but they also drive away productive editors. In other words, the disease is cured, but the patient dies.
370:
339:
439:
174:
Greetings. I hope you stick around. I understand your decision and will still support you as an honest and well-meaning editor. Good luck. --
83:
Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.
377:
360:
346:
333:
282:
243:
198:
163:
389:
435:
422:
describes the
Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
431:
261:
318:
183:
60:
427:
144:
227:
169:
369:
happening now, but you never know! If you truly are leaving, then "Happy trails, amigo."Â :-) --
116:
41:
309:
My disillusionment has reached critical mass. There are better things to do with my time. --
288:
63:
was an actual policy, not merely a guideline to be ignored if you're on a righteous crusade?
418:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
375:
344:
8:
423:
256:
217:
324:
Almost got back into it to try and fix an article, but not worth the hassle. Ciao. --
399:
390:
71:
about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but
419:
403:
179:
139:
68:
303:
128:
415:
407:
338:
I'm a little in the dark here. Did I say or do something to drive you away? --
411:
366:
352:
325:
310:
274:
235:
223:
190:
155:
108:
33:
210:
204:
175:
134:
102:
27:
Unfortunately, I've been the target of threats and harassment on-wiki.
101:
What else is wrong with
Knowledge? I'm in broad agreement with what
250:
Hertzsprung–Russell diagram according to mainstream astrophysicists
302:
weighting significant minority views. I'm sorry to say that, but
406:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Knowledge
133:
Welcome to
Citizendium. We are looking for expert editors. --
23:
This user is no longer active on
Knowledge as of January 2009.
273:
let it remain. Why should I bother? Anyway, good luck. --
31:
any personal information connecting me with this account.
151:
Got that right. As usual your timing is exquisite. :-)
105:
says on his user page. Well worth the time to read.
398:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
29:Therefore, please do not release or repeat
298:something about spreading knowledge.
13:
14:
450:
424:review the candidates' statements
54:Why civility matters on Knowledge
430:. For the Election committee,
400:Arbitration Committee election
391:ArbCom elections are now open!
1:
440:13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
145:22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
378:08:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
361:07:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
347:07:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
334:07:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
319:15:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
283:14:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
267:03:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
244:14:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
228:22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
164:10:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
117:10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
42:14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
7:
426:and submit your choices on
199:09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
184:18:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
73:some types of comments are
10:
455:
432:MediaWiki message delivery
234:luck, happy editing. --
86:
61:WP:No personal attacks
404:Arbitration Committee
65:
408:arbitration process
216:I once proposed at
420:arbitration policy
265:
446:
259:
142:
69:bright-line rule
20:
19:
454:
453:
449:
448:
447:
445:
444:
443:
428:the voting page
394:
291:
252:
207:
172:
170:Happy New Year!
140:
131:
45:
24:
21:
17:
16:
12:
11:
5:
452:
397:
393:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
290:
287:
286:
285:
251:
248:
247:
246:
206:
203:
202:
201:
171:
168:
167:
166:
130:
127:
125:
123:
121:
85:
84:
59:Remember when
58:
52:
51:
49:
47:
32:
30:
28:
25:
22:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
451:
442:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
392:
379:
376:
374:
373:
368:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
348:
345:
343:
342:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
307:
305:
299:
295:
289:OK, I give up
284:
280:
276:
271:
270:
269:
268:
263:
258:
245:
241:
237:
232:
231:
230:
229:
226:
225:
219:
214:
212:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:
186:
185:
181:
177:
165:
161:
157:
152:
149:
148:
147:
146:
143:
138:
137:
126:
122:
119:
118:
114:
110:
106:
104:
98:
94:
90:
82:
81:
80:
78:
76:
70:
64:
62:
56:
55:
48:
44:
43:
39:
35:
395:
371:
356:
340:
329:
314:
308:
300:
296:
292:
278:
253:
239:
222:
215:
208:
194:
173:
159:
150:
135:
132:
124:
120:
112:
100:
99:
95:
91:
87:
74:
72:
67:There is no
66:
57:
53:
50:
46:
37:
26:
416:topic bans
372:Levine2112
341:Levine2112
103:User:Gleng
77:acceptable
412:site bans
306:and all.
353:Backin72
326:Backin72
311:Backin72
304:WP:SPADE
275:Backin72
257:Eldereft
236:Backin72
224:MastCell
191:Backin72
156:Backin72
109:Backin72
34:Backin72
129:Welcome
18:Retired
402:. The
367:wP:BRD
218:WT:MED
211:Dematt
176:Fyslee
141:(chat)
136:DÄ“matt
79:: ...
262:cont.
75:never
436:talk
357:n.b.
330:n.b.
315:n.b.
279:n.b.
240:n.b.
195:n.b.
180:talk
160:n.b.
113:n.b.
38:n.b.
396:Hi,
205:Hey
438:)
414:,
359:)
332:)
317:)
281:)
242:)
197:)
182:)
162:)
115:)
107:--
40:)
434:(
355:(
328:(
313:(
277:(
264:)
260:(
238:(
193:(
178:(
158:(
111:(
36:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.