More wiki madness

I don't "do wikipedia" so maybe I'm missing a lot, but it sure sounds like a bunch of monks arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

Is there an automated logger that provides a running estimate of how many person-hours have been spent on an individual arbitration process?

Link redirects to the general arbitration guide. Is it over?

[Thanks. The arbs are being even more excitable than I'd thought. Fixing -W]

I don't know what's going on in this particular case (I'm not even a fraction active what I used to be) but that Bishonen/Bishzilla/etc. is a multi-account user (irregularly tolerated - Thatcher closed the case I opened against him/her in ANI some months ago) that has already jumped onto my neck once. I don't trust that person.

I don't have a clear opinion of Geogre but in general I distrust admins, specially veteran admins, because they are too afraid of each other and tend to cover each other up (and their respective cliques). Too politicized.

Wikipedia needs anti-trust action - i.e. splitting in smaller competing units, so contributors (who are the real creators of the knowledge inside it) can "vote with their feet" and the prize for getting control of it is less tempting.

Are we supposed to understand this? It's all Greek to me. I remember when editing Wikipedia was fun and worthwhile; now it seems to be a colossally complicated dick-waving contest.

I'm impressed that you don't loos the temper more often... It must be hell trying to keep the globalwarming pages good.

Its a pity wikipedia isn't photogenic. Otherwise you could sell soap opera rights.

Its a pity wikipedia isn't photogenic. Otherwise you could sell soap opera rights.

I beg to differ. Consider, say, an episode showing [sorry, that would have been inflammatory, unfortunately -W]

And, add in a dash of the theory of a Worldwide Warmist Conspiracy, and it can even start to hold a candle to the Rome series. I think we've got a winner here.

(And speaking of conspiracies...)

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Um oops. OK, I was saying, consider an episode showing âââââ making out with âââââ or something, and the bigger question of âââââ got into âââââ's good books (probably best left unanswered). Anyway, silence, you get the idea...

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

[Much better :-) -W]

bi -- IJI: Oh yes, but nobody, and I mean NOBODY has a reliable source as to whether âââââ and âââââ were really making out. :P

"the bigger question of..."

Oops, should be "the bigger question of how..."

but nobody, and I mean NOBODY has a reliable source as to whether âââââ and âââââ were really making out. :P

If âââââ and âââââ really want to sell soap opera rights, then they will be the "reliable" source. :-B

... Oh shucks. I just realized that the Warmist Conspiracy Theories aren't half as colourful as the huge ruckus that's Wikipedia. Wikipedia conspiracy theories have cabals, inquisitions, money sloshing around, the whole nine yards. And on top of that, they also involve people making out. When was the last time you saw a climate conspiracy theory and wondered whether âââââ was making out with âââââ?

Conclusion: Wikipedia pwns climate science. For now.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Mr Connelly, thanks again for educating me. I read enough of the links but not all.

Wikipedia looks a bit like G8.

Incidentally and if it's not impolite to ask : how do you find the time to talk to your family, loved ones and friends?

[Talk to my family? what makes you think I do that? But to answer you: my wife has a laptop too. We exchange emails :-) -W]

I support your sea-ice bet : as a non-specialist in climate I like to see people putting their money where their mouth is it helps me to make better judgments on the evidence and opinions.

what a goat rope.

I'm sure someone would find this eventually, but this could use fixing.

[Gone already: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Hansen&diff=224621858&o… Some chap called "Bi", apparently :-) -W]