http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You...s_or_against_us
Full Version: You're Either With Wiki Or Against It...
It looks like a (pretty boring, actually) humor page. What's special about it?
QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Mon 10th May 2010, 8:37pm) 
It looks like a (pretty boring, actually) humor page. What's special about it?
It's already been changed several times, although not by the original author. Here's the original text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=361333482
It doesn't seem to be intended to be humorous, and seems directly aimed at Larry Sanger (or anyone else who is "against" Wikipedia in vague, unspecified terms).
Sadly, the page in question does not appear to have been offered as humor.
If it was true, why are so many of the Arbitrators not banned? I mean, there is tons of evidence after all. 
O con noi o contro di noi
QUOTE
As a general principle, I think the time has come when we tighten up on vandalism and those who are not generally supportive of our founding principles. It appears that our greatest strength has now become our greatest weakness. We are already too tolerant of the former, leaving it to four warnings before blocking, even temporarily, except in obvious and gross circumstances. As regards the latter, I know of no other website that tolerates abuse of its basic principles for one moment, and that includes Facebook and MySpace. This endeavour, to my mind, is a generous, and some would say liberal, attempt to provide free knowledge written by altruistic volunteers. Maybe that essay is too short and not fully-argued, but it's an opening in a debate; and it's currently an opinion. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=361387412
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=361387412
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 11th May 2010, 6:51am)
QUOTE
As a general principle, I think the time has come when we tighten up on vandalism and those who are not generally supportive of our founding principles. It appears that our greatest strength has now become our greatest weakness. We are already too tolerant of the former, leaving it to four warnings before blocking, even temporarily, except in obvious and gross circumstances. As regards the latter, I know of no other website that tolerates abuse of its basic principles for one moment, and that includes Facebook and MySpace. This endeavour, to my mind, is a generous, and some would say liberal, attempt to provide free knowledge written by altruistic volunteers. Maybe that essay is too short and not fully-argued, but it's an opening in a debate; and it's currently an opinion. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=361387412
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=361387412
Man, who does Rod think he is here, Dick Cheney? That is one ignorant mindset there.
QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 11th May 2010, 2:08pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Tue 11th May 2010, 6:51am)
QUOTE
As a general principle, I think the time has come when we tighten up on vandalism and those who are not generally supportive of our founding principles. It appears that our greatest strength has now become our greatest weakness. We are already too tolerant of the former, leaving it to four warnings before blocking, even temporarily, except in obvious and gross circumstances. As regards the latter, I know of no other website that tolerates abuse of its basic principles for one moment, and that includes Facebook and MySpace. This endeavour, to my mind, is a generous, and some would say liberal, attempt to provide free knowledge written by altruistic volunteers. Maybe that essay is too short and not fully-argued, but it's an opening in a debate; and it's currently an opinion. Rodhullandemu 01:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=361387412
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=361387412
Man, who does Rod think he is here, Dick Cheney? That is one ignorant mindset there.
Not within the portals of WikiWorld - they really believe this stuff.
QUOTE(Tarc @ Tue 11th May 2010, 9:08am)
Man, who does Rod think he is here, Dick Cheney?
Well, if he does, then he's half right.
Cf. Adminions Who Have Themselves Confused With Robots
Jon
QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 10th May 2010, 10:43pm)
If it was true, why are so many of the Arbitrators not banned? I mean, there is tons of evidence after all.
Tons? Oh, please - Foz and Brad aren't that fat!
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 10th May 2010, 10:32pm)
Sadly, the page in question does not appear to have been offered as humor.
It ain't funny, in any of its versions.
Although it does link to Sneetches, with stars above their breeches...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.