User talk:Cubdriver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After six months' active participation in a score or so of Wiki articles, I've decided that the whole enterprise is so flawed as not to be worth pursuing. Indeed, I've come to regard Wiki as a perfect example of the thousand-monkey scenario, and proof if any be needed that a thousand monkeys typing at a thousand keyboards will never write a novel, and even less will they create a reliable reference work.

Too many articles are held hostage by a coterie that establishes a consensus among two or three "editors", and uses that presumed authority to prevent any diverging additions. Other articles are created or altered by somone with only the vaguest grasp of history, and go uncorrected for months or forever. In either case, the monkey with the most time on his hands will win out in the end.

It's a hopeless task. In my judgment, anyone who devotes any time to Wiki is a fool or, worse, has an agenda that justifies his labor at the expense of those who foolishly rely on Wiki as a source of information.

[edit] WSJ page

Thanks for your above candid assessment about your Wikipedia feelings. I have discussed the "David Wessel" issue on the WSJ Talk page. You have reverted without comment. This is bordering on vandalism. Either discuss it on the Talk page, or desist. Eleemosynary 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-edit at its finest: perpetuate a falsehood (in this case, that the Journal has no regularly scheduled liberal commentary, while ignoring or denying that Mr. Wessel's page 2 Thursday paeans to the welfare state constitute just that) and then cry vandalism! when the lie is corrected. So it goes in Wiki-dom. The winners is he with the least to occupy his time.

Wrong on all counts. But bitter, nonetheless. Eleemosynary 11:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry you feel letdown...

Hi Cubdriver. You're obviously a good writer as your goodbye message indicates, and you know my feelings towards the edit we were in conflict over. Your writing is worth a lot more than the trim I made and your feelings are worth a lot more than Wikipedia. Jonathan F 08:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a Wikipedian passing by...Cubdriver, your monkey analogy is largely correct. I think

that your only fault is attitude. Why?

Yes, many on Wikipedia can be considered monkeys that hold certain articles hostage. But,

• I don't feel you would consider yourself a monkey.
• I wouldn't consider myself a monkey.
• I know other wikipedians who are not monkeys. In fact, some who I know to behave very badly

regarding a certain article, behave wonderfully with regard to most.

Conclusion: If we all strive not to be monkeys (Be nice, and constructive, rational and

persuadable), then Wikipedia will work.

Message me if you have a response, question, criticism.

--Zaorish 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)