Sunday, June 8, 2008

Comments on comments

I have received a number of angry ranting incoherent comments in response to my "Parable" blog post. I have also received some basically irrelevant comments in response to the "Parable" blog post.

At first I was going to publish them all, and reply to each one, rebutting the more extreme nonsensical statements. I even prepared a long blog post precisely for this purpose. However, on reflection I have decided not to do this, basically for two reasons

(1) Doing so would likely just escalate an already ugly situation and flame war.

(2) Responding is exactly what trolls want; they want the attention, like naughty children throwing tantrums. Publishing their comments and responding to them would just encourage more temper tantrums, which are unproductive.

However, I will allow myself to make some general comments about the comments:

(a) If you want me to publish any of your comments, make them rational and reasonable and lucid. Try to actually think first before posting.

(b) I will not publish trolling, unless it is in highly expurgated form, at my discretion, as an example to make a point.

(c) Several people have attacked me for being involved somehow with the BADSITES policy. I am not nor have I ever been involved with the BADSITES policy. I am not now nor have I ever been involved with any of the discussions of the BADSITES policy. I do not know what the BADSITES policy is and I don't care (I have described more of my thoughts on this issue in my "Wikipedia Review reviewed" blog post).

I also think that the more people that the rabid anti-BADSITES agitators and activists fallaciously attack over the BADSITES policy, and the more furious, frothing at the mouth, incontinent, lunatic wretched spews raving about BADSITES are published, the more people will be persuaded that maybe BADSITES was not such a lousy idea after all. Making repeated spurious accusations about BADSITES claiming that there is a BADSITES advocate hiding behind every tree has the exact opposite of what you presumably intend. Angry irrational BADSITES opponents are the best possible recruiters for a revival of the BADSITES proposal.

(d) It does not matter how you phrase it or how you couch it or how much you try to obfuscate the issue, the New York Times is a reliable source. There is nothing stopping Wikipedia from including a statement like "The New York Times reported X on date Y" if it is a verifiable fact that the New York Times did so.

No comments: