Now here's a real labor saviour for The Wikipedia Review —


Short enuff for a bumper sticker is the best kind of policey.

Jonny

Are there links for this?

I was abstracting the leading principle of LS*'s argument on another thread, that you can get by following the snapback (the little arrow) on that quote.

Jonny

Do you have difficulty expressing yourself without resorting to allusion? Could it be that, paradoxically, by veiling your posts in allegory and illustrating them with obscure symbology you leave too much interpretation to the reader? Is it possible that there is no message at all?

Really Johnny, we have a forum for criticising Wikipedia Review. It's called the Wikipedia mailing list. Or alternatively you can go to Wikipedia Review Review. You are never going to get along with all members, or agree with all policies. Nobody does. Ultimately, there are going to be some people that disagree with us.

We would benefit, Wikipedia would benefit, and all people that hate Wikipedia but also don't like Wikipedia Review (which by now would be at least a dozen or so) would benefit if you, or someone like you, would start a new site. We give you permission to do this. We will even link to your site most likely.

If however you wish to play the game of "Look at me, I can complain about people and not get banned" in an attempt to goad people in to banning you, well, eventually you're going to run in to a Tony Sidaway or a David Gerard, who are going to say "fuck you" and ban you anyway.

Now, we like you, you are our 3rd biggest contributor, and we want you to stay. But please you have to stop this kind of thing. Focus on WP, not on other people here, please.

Yup, you really got my # that time — I suffer from allusions of grandeur, and my only compensation is sharing that misery with the present Bad Company as much as I possibly can.

Or maybe it's more like this. I've been participating in this Forum for almost a year now, which means that I've read just about everything that can be said about Wikipedia approximately 300 times, and wrote everything I can think of say about Wikipedia approximately 300 times, and I just naturally keep searching for novel variations on the same old same old themes.

The cure for that is clear enuff ...

Jonny

Actually WP is a remarkable machine for generating the raw material to be worked into parody and criticism. Given the refreshing effect of new examples, abuses, and dramas I don't think repetition of themes and ideas is such a bad thing. In fact repetition is needed to make others understand the arguments supporting our criticisms. This is especially true given the wide variation of experience and understand among WR intended audience. I also find that my critique develops and changes over time from argument and discussion with the other contributors of WR.

I'm a fan of Jonny Cash's "allusions of grandeur." Not everyone is. I worry that frequent complaints over style and accessibility might deter his posting. It also occurs to me that blog posting under WR "Editorials" page might provide more creative space and an opportunity to develop finished pieces sheltered from complaints. Of course other may always comment. But a blog is more a finished pieces of writing than the conversational nature of the discussion board.

In any event I look forward to JC continued contributions.

Aye, perhaps. But you must understand how this could put people, especially the impatient, off reading your posts?

Aye, there's the rub.

Jonny ∨¬2