neelu

In my opinion, Thekohser's difficulties at Wikipedia are more a function of his personality than of the paid nature of his formerly proposed activities there. He often notes that there does exist paid activity at Wikipedia and tries to portray that as inconsistent, when actually what it shows is that it is not simply being paid activity that was (and is) the difficulty with his behavior at Wikipedia. Kind of like how Moulton condemns Wikipedia for being rules based and also for not following its 70-293 Exam own rules. People who condemn something for both being X and not being X are being emotional and not logical. In my opinion, WAS 4.250's theory of my difficulties at Wikipedia are about as tangible as his real-name identity. In other words, worthless. My "difficulty" became unworkable on the night of October 4, 2006, when Jimmy Wales reversed himself on an agreement he had proposed to me. Set aside all of the grumblings from JzG, Calton, you, and others, WAS 4.250, you weren't able AT ANY POINT between about August 20 and October 3, 2006 to stop my business from authoring GFDL content and getting paid for it. There were no "difficulties" until Jimmy Wales had an unflattering breakdown and deleted 70-297 Exam a perfectly viable and acceptable unpaid article about Arch Coal, which he mistakenly thought was paid for. In the big scheme of things, the joke was on Wales, and by you perpetuating this myth that I was having "difficulties" conducting business prior to October 4th, you're making yourself a part of the joke. I'm a bit surprised, frankly, WAS 4.250 -- you're normally more sage than this. The hypocrisy and double standards at Wikipedia are an observation that the rules exist not for the purpose of crafting an orderly process, but for the purpose clobbering one's opponents in the daily dramas of deciding what content to include in the online encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with rules if one is 70-528 Exam seeking to define a game which is played on a level playing field. But I am not aware of any theory to suggest that an authentic encyclopedia can be crafted by means of such a game (even if it were a fair game). Hypocrisy and double standards exist everywhere. There is no place they do not exist. Your ignorance of "any theory to suggest that an authentic encyclopedia can be crafted by means of such a game" does not indicate that it can not occur. You do not know everything. Wikipedia is indeed crafted in a game-like way and millions of people find it useful and many studies have shown it to be more accurate than some widely used sources and only a little less accurate than Britannica.