tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2121515581554265591.post4781493361232013883..comments2011-02-27T16:37:20.427-08:00Comments on Wikipedia's Most Brutal Warriors: Dastardly vicious attack by Nihiltres (aka "Alex") on Yahoo! AnswersBill Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12210828536425166560noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2121515581554265591.post-26473253438717479692010-02-01T20:17:50.251-08:002010-02-01T20:17:50.251-08:00Thanks, Mel Lefebvre.Thanks, Mel Lefebvre.Gregory Kohshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17207068772106028805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2121515581554265591.post-62726155090569615962010-01-30T18:20:23.811-08:002010-01-30T18:20:23.811-08:00For the record, I don't have any sockpuppets o...For the record, I don't have any sockpuppets on Yahoo! Answers. Descending to the level of what I oppose would defeat the purpose of argument about it. It is somewhat amusing, however, that you make the assumption of me. There are a number of users who are conducting pro- or anti-Wikipedia campaigns on Yahoo! Answers, but I'm around primarily because I noticed that people on Yahoo! Answers weren't getting good answers to their questions.<br /><br />I suppose I do come off as strongly pro-Wikipedia, and that's because I am for the most part, but my narrative wouldn't be half as strong were I not forced to contradict people who come along saying "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS USELESS FOR EVERYTHING AND COMPLETE BOLLOCKS" or more eloquent versions of the same. What I'd like to see would be a fair game: no voting wars, no silly sockpuppets, no trolling back and forth over the silly issue. Then I could voice my own concerns about Wikipedia, which I'd love to voice but will not in an environment where agitators will magnify them beyond their scope.<br /><br />People should behave like grown-ups, and it's unfortunate that not everyone there is doing so (on either side of the debate), but I'm not going to let myself get sucked into this mess past contradicting those who want to push the point of view that Wikipedia's a cesspool. I'll continue to provide good, informative answers, and let people make their own decisions. The way that most people ignore their questions and let them slide into the vote-spammed oblivion says to me that my answer is about as effective without getting the "Best Answer" carrot that Yahoo! dangles. The only thing that marginally bothers me is the thumbing-down of my answers: it's clear that this is being done with me in particular in mind (rather than the merit, or lack thereof, of the answer) and I find that to be rather inappropriate, to say the least. Attacks on individuals won't cure any problem.<br /><br />Wikipedia isn't a cesspool, but it isn't perfect, either. It has serious unresolved problems! But if you attack the problems, time and time again you will not see an improvement against the problems but a defense against the attack. This is true of many organizations. As I've suggested to Greg before (and been ignored), you'll get better results if you raise your concerns quietly and politely, rather than through screaming that Wikipedia's a scam or evil or anything like that. The latter, in particular, causes one to come off as a crank.<br /><br />I'm glad to see that you acknowledged the truth of what I said about Greg in a later post.<br /><br />Here's a tip: consider Greg's comments on the Akahele "answers" post. (Incidentally, I admire Akahele and wish that he'd post there more often, because he makes good commentary there and mostly trolls elsewhere.) Check out the answers he links there and you just might notice something interesting about my presence in them.Nihiltreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17489170097049783110noreply@blogger.com