| >Looking past the condescending "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" description Why look past it? It's an important criticism and helps describe why the interviewee's answers lack depth and wisdom. >discuss the unblockables Wikipedia doesn't want to block them, nor do they try. Influence peddlers, NGOs, etc., are the most prolific editors. >Post some examples and we'll see what you think of as bullying. You're entering a lecture on the role of class-based modalities in Shakespearean scansion and demanding the professor explain the "i before e" rule. If you're not aware of the most fundamental aspects of the discussion then remove yourself from the conversation. Searching "wikipedia editors bullying" will return you tons of resources on this basic fact, including *an article on Wikipedia about that widespread phenomenon,* with examples. No one is obligated to teach you the absolute basics of the topic or refrain from relying on them in an argument because you're personally uninformed. >Also $3M is a hilarious undercount Read the audit >Yes, she gets barnstars. Are you complaining about that? Am I? >does that count as part of the jetset board too? Why would they? How is that related? > Does she not do a tremendous service to the project through her outreach and recruitment efforts? Does she? And? >Yeah, it seems like you preferred another article, as a sibling said. I'd have preferred another article? Okay |