User talk:Nomorecorruptcops2
- Ah, come on. That was you, and you know it has nothing to do with "coin telephony". Telling transparent lies with a straight face just hurts your credibility, just like crossing the line into vandalism also hurts credibility when admins wade in and assess the situation and just automatically revert. -- Curps 05:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Why the switch, by the way? You haven't got the old account blocked yet. -- Curps 05:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The only thing you accomplish by disrupting articles like Ward Churchill is to get them frozen in a state that is the opposite of what you want; further, you get other users to circle the wagons and resist any change, making it difficult for any editors who try to project a more moderate image (the Tony Marvin persona) to make any changes either.
The question is, does it matter? Maybe Wikipedia isn't that important, or maybe it is, but either way the disruption doesn't make sense.
If Wikipedia isn't that important, then it makes no sense to spend extraordinary time and effort to try to disrupt it. The time could be more productively spent reading or contributing to blogs and message boards and online forums, writing letters to the editor, participating in real-world political grass-roots political activity, etc.
If Wikipedia is important enough to matter, then the last thing you want is for articles to be frozen in the "wrong" state and made more difficult to change, because the article in that state will get picked up by Google and various Wikipedia clones and mirrors.
Politics on Wikipedia is like politics in real life. It's frustrating and slow, and requires tremendous patience to accomplish relatively small things, but there are no shortcuts in real life either when dealing with people who you disagree with. Lashing out and losing your temper only hurts your own credibility and hampers the ability to get things done, not only for you but for anyone else trying to accomplish anything. -- Curps 06:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)