| Revision as of 07:32, 25 May 2008 view sourceRaymond arritt (talk | contribs)13,222 edits on second thought, I should have stuck to it. Bye.← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:49, 9 July 2008 view source 129.186.187.120 (talk) a suitable epitaphNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{wikibreak | {{wikibreak | ||
| | message="The fragility of the system is based on the tensions between sucking in volunteers to contribute, yet not having conflicts tear them apart. In this regard, I think Misplaced Pages does much more poorly than is generally believed. But people have the impression that it does well, because it draws from an expanding pool of new fodder to replace those who it burns out or drives away. That is, it's not really good at conflict-resolution. In fact, it's arguably worse than average. But it can get by, because there's more than enough replacement (free) labor. However, from a lot of perspectives, that's not such a great thing." | |||
| | message=''']''' is disillusioned with the backbiting and witch hunts that have lately taken over the project, and is taking ''']'''. He may make occasional edits until he returns to more regular editing (assuming he decides to do so). | |||
| }} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:49, 9 July 2008
 | "The fragility of the system is based on the tensions between sucking in volunteers to contribute, yet not having conflicts tear them apart. In this regard, I think Misplaced Pages does much more poorly than is generally believed. But people have the impression that it does well, because it draws from an expanding pool of new fodder to replace those who it burns out or drives away. That is, it's not really good at conflict-resolution. In fact, it's arguably worse than average. But it can get by, because there's more than enough replacement (free) labor. However, from a lot of perspectives, that's not such a great thing." Seth Finkelstein, 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |