Tony Parsehole wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... n-apology/
So it begins.... I'm surprised FTB aren't trying to sweep this under the carpet: It's JT missing Matt Dillahunty's point/experiment completely and saying Matt D should apologise. Points of note are that JT is beamoaning the fact that SkepTickle, who made the heinous mistake of questioning the A+ dogma (and being subsequently banned) is now "welcomed with open arms at the Slyme Pit" thus proving how evil we are that we would welcome a sceptic who occasionally asks questions.
JT also makes the mistake of saying the A+forum is troll fatigued. Troll fatigued? They have 1853 users and have only banned 30, including Matt, for "trolling". hardly warrants fatigue.*
I have only skimmed it so far as I can't be arsed going in depth at the minute.
*hat-tip to integralmath on Youtube
Just saw this comment over there:
their forum will ever be as useful for anyone as Wikipedia.
But getting back to the point I think they are trying to make about "not disrupting WIkipedia to make a point"
A. All the mods had to do was not shit-can a comment immediately and then refuse to reinstate it to avoid disruption. Matt's post did not cause disruption. The insane reaction to it and the nasty comments from the regulars caused the disruption. I frankly can't think of anything that won't cause disruption over there. Some people are looking to be offended, and some mods enjoy their power a little too much.
B. Wikipedia actually has many ways to contest changes being reversed. The issues can be discussed in the open for all to see for most things. Plus Wikipedia is a useful source for factual information, so it makes sense admins there are not going to look kindly on people abusing it. Yet you don't see them demanding for Stephen Colbert to apologize everytime he or his fans on a mission change a page. The may LOCK the page (which is reasonable), but they don't set loose the hounds or tumble onto a fainting couch.
Plus, when people change pages to remove information or place mis-information...they could be called trolls legitimately. Not agreeing 100% with what everyone else writes on Atheismplus is not trolling. Matt wasn't trolling. His post, even under another account, was his true feelings or concerns.
C. If Wikipedia had the same trouble with capricious admins that Atheismplus forums has, then they need more than disrupting.